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

>> @duplicate_metavariable_type@
>> identifier x, y;
>> @@
>> (x
>> &y
>> )
> 
> Certainly it does not seem very useful.

I hope that presented clarification approaches will evolve in more desirable directions.

* Can the Coccinelle software help any more to point similarly questionable SmPL code out?

* Would you find logical consequences apparent then?


>                                          But maybe there is some need to
> have two names for the same thing.

This is obviously the case for other source code search variations.
Identifier selection would become more interesting accordingly,
wouldn't  it?

Regards,
Markus