On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > > @r@ > > identifier f,i1,i2; > > struct i1 e1; > > expression e2; > > position p; > > @@ > > \(strscpy\|strlcpy\)(e1.f, e2, i2)@p > > I have got the impression that the replacement can work also > without an inherited position variable at the end. > How do you think about to omit this SmPL rule then? > > Can it be nicer to reduce duplicate SmPL code a bit? Huh? Rule 2 is important, to ensure that ths size is correct. Without rule 1, how can rule 2 be checked? julia
