> Where is the typo?
I tried to point a possible replacement out for the word “overlow” by “overflow”.
> I can't handle your suggestions
I hope that you got chances to take also my patch review comments into account.
> because your mails constantly break the threads. I just can't find them
> after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To headers.
There are some factors involved for this undesirable effect.
* My software selection contains open issues in the handling of mail links
according to the communication interface “public inbox”.
* Mailing list settings hinder more direct participation (for me).
* If you would specify more mail addresses for reviewers (like me) explicitly
as recipients, the impression can hopefully become more positive again.
>>> +expression subE1 <= as.E1;
>>> +expression subE2 <= as.E2;
>>> +expression as.E1, as.E2, E3;
>>
>> How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant?
>>
>> expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3;
>
> It's less readable and harder to review.
Can a different code formatting help then?
expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2,
as.E1, as.E2, E3;
>> I suggest to move the ampersand before the disjunction in such
>> SmPL code exclusion specifications.
>>
>> + when != & \(E1 \| E2 \| subE1 \| subE2\)
>
> Ok, I will fix this if there will be next version.
Other software extensions which you proposed recently were similarly affected
at a few places.
>> I would prefer an other code formatting at such places.
>>
>> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
>> + f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size.")
>
> No. It's pointless to break the line to save 5 chars this way.
Did we get used to function parameter alignment?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=1b5044021070efa3259f3e9548dc35d1eb6aa844#n93
I suggest to reconsider potential concerns for line length limitations
according to such message strings.
Regards,
Markus
