It seems that your resoning is "I wish Coccinelle would work this way, so I will suggest an "improvement" to a proposed semantic patch that actually currently has inferior behavior as compared to the original one (but not mention that at all in the message), and hope that the Coccinelle developers will think that adding the functionality that you hope for is a very important priority". If you want a feature to be added, ask for the feature. But please stop confusing the discussion about semantic patches that are proposed by other people. julia On Sat, 2 Jul 2022, Markus Elfring wrote: > > > The whole point of the proposed change is to trigger some isomorphisms. > > I really doubt that any isomorphisms will be triggered with this suggestion. > > > Such expectations are interesting for further clarification, aren't they? > > Will any extensions become relevant also for the handling of isomorphisms > by the Coccinelle software? > > Would you like to extend the following SmPL code variant anyhow > so that more case distinctions will be taken better into account? > > @display@ > statement is, es; > expression x; > binary operator bo; > @@ > ( > *if (&x) > is > else > es > | > * &x bo NULL > | > * NULL bo &x > | > * !(&x) > ) > > > Regards, > Markus >
