Re: [cocci] Rechecking selected expression list representations

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-1267916028-1780046799=:3655
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT



On Fri, 29 May 2026, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>> I guess that what is pretty printed is the result of pushing the
> >>> disjunction out to the statement level.
> >>
> >> Why would a “guess” become relevant here?
> >>
> >> Would we prefer to be certain also according to mentioned implementation details?
> >>
> >>
> >>>                                          At that point you can't see
> >>> whether a comma operator is used or whether there is a list of arguments,
> >>> because they look the same.
> >>
> >> Where would you see that “special” comma expressions are passed to function call parameters?
> >
> > The original semantic patch.  That is what is parsed, and thus that is
> > where it is decided what a given comma represents.
>
> Would you like to acknowledge then that software components for the presentation
> of SmPL script parsing results contain still open issues?

No.

>
> How will development interests evolve for adjusting remaining “pretty-printing” concerns?
>
>
> >                                                     There is no
> > disjunction operation for a fragment of an argument list, only for
> > individual expressions.  So you don't get a parse error because there is a
> > way to parse e1,e2 as a single expression.
>
> It would be nice if the support can grow for related topics.
>
> * Support for SmPL disjunctions on every token
>   2015-08-10
>   https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/40

This is not soemthing that will happen.

> * Improve support for SmPL disjunctions
>   2019-10-21
>   https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/174

The response there still stands too.

julia
--8323329-1267916028-1780046799=:3655--