>>> Thus I suggest to reconsider the usage of the word “every” for the patch message >>> once more. >> I'm not against changing the patch's subject. > > > I propose to reconsider also the patch description accordingly. For me the patch description is fine. Do you have a part of the description in mind that is not ok? >> Would you find it better if it was "coccinelle: Extend address test from ifaddr >> to test expressions"? > > > Another wording variant? > > * address test ⇒ address check > > * ifaddr ⇒ script “ifaddr” I'll keep "address check" but I can improve the "ifaddr" part: instead of "script" as you suggested I'll use "semantic patch". >>> Will further adjustments become helpful for desired source code analyses >>> and corresponding transformations? >> Do you mean adjustments in this semantic patch or in the coccinelle software? > > > Both. > > Are we looking for further collateral evolution? I can't speak for the coccinelle part but for this semantic patch I'm not planning other changes for the moment (except the improvements suggested during the review of the patch). Actually I don't know if the example you presented (bool t = (&s);) is really a text expression of if it is a cast to bool. But even if it is a separate case, it may be possible to detect that with a semantic patch. But I'm not sure that it is in the scope of this patch nor the rule modified by this patch. Thank you, Jérémy
