Re: [cocci] Logical consequences for applications of SmPL conjunctions

> Are involved subterms as often evaluated as they are specified for such SmPL conjunctions?

Will clarifications and development ideas evolve further also according to another
SmPL script variant?


@Example@
@@
(
// X: Check data 1
&
// Y: Adjust data 2
)


Would a source code search start with the selection of entities which should be matched?

Which item would you choose for a condition check here?

Is collateral evolution involved then for the specification of SmPL code
in companion branches like “Y”?


Regards,
Markus