Why did you repeat a typo from the previous patch subject?
> Changes in v2:
…
> - assignment operator used
Did you add just a metavariable for this implementation detail?
…
> +expression subE1 <= as.E1;
> +expression subE2 <= as.E2;
> +expression as.E1, as.E2, E3;
How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant?
expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3;
> + when != \(&E1\|&E2\|&subE1\|&subE2\)
I suggest to move the ampersand before the disjunction in such
SmPL code exclusion specifications.
+ when != & \(E1 \| E2 \| subE1 \| subE2\)
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
> +f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute \
> +the same size")
I would prefer an other code formatting at such places.
+coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
+ f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size.")
Regards,
Markus
Hi,
On 6/18/20 2:34 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Why did you repeat a typo from the previous patch subject?
Where is the typo? I can't handle your suggestions because your mails constantly
break the threads. I just can't find them after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To
headers. Again, this mail doesn't contain In-Reply-To header and highly likely I
will miss it when I will prepare next version of the patch.
>> +expression subE1 <= as.E1;
>> +expression subE2 <= as.E2;
>> +expression as.E1, as.E2, E3;
>
> How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant?
>
> expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3;
It's less readable and harder to review.
>
>> + when != \(&E1\|&E2\|&subE1\|&subE2\)
>
> I suggest to move the ampersand before the disjunction in such
> SmPL code exclusion specifications.
>
> + when != & \(E1 \| E2 \| subE1 \| subE2\)
Ok, I will fix this if there will be next version.
>
>
>> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
>> +f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute \
>> +the same size")
>
> I would prefer an other code formatting at such places.
>
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
> + f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size.")
>
No. It's pointless to break the line to save 5 chars this way.
I can use instead:
coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size")
or
msg = f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size"
coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], msg)
or
coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size")
And I prefer the last one if Julia will allow me to use more than 80 chars in print string.
Thanks,
Denis
> Where is the typo?
I tried to point a possible replacement out for the word “overlow” by “overflow”.
> I can't handle your suggestions
I hope that you got chances to take also my patch review comments into account.
> because your mails constantly break the threads. I just can't find them
> after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To headers.
There are some factors involved for this undesirable effect.
* My software selection contains open issues in the handling of mail links
according to the communication interface “public inbox”.
* Mailing list settings hinder more direct participation (for me).
* If you would specify more mail addresses for reviewers (like me) explicitly
as recipients, the impression can hopefully become more positive again.
>>> +expression subE1 <= as.E1;
>>> +expression subE2 <= as.E2;
>>> +expression as.E1, as.E2, E3;
>>
>> How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant?
>>
>> expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2, as.E1, as.E2, E3;
>
> It's less readable and harder to review.
Can a different code formatting help then?
expression subE1 <= as.E1, subE2 <= as.E2,
as.E1, as.E2, E3;
>> I suggest to move the ampersand before the disjunction in such
>> SmPL code exclusion specifications.
>>
>> + when != & \(E1 \| E2 \| subE1 \| subE2\)
>
> Ok, I will fix this if there will be next version.
Other software extensions which you proposed recently were similarly affected
at a few places.
>> I would prefer an other code formatting at such places.
>>
>> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0],
>> + f"WARNING: array_size is already used (line {p1[0].line}) to compute the same size.")
>
> No. It's pointless to break the line to save 5 chars this way.
Did we get used to function parameter alignment?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?id=1b5044021070efa3259f3e9548dc35d1eb6aa844#n93
I suggest to reconsider potential concerns for line length limitations
according to such message strings.
Regards,
Markus
> I can't handle your suggestions
I hope that you can work with provided information to some degree.
> because your mails constantly break the threads.
Would you like to take another look at reasons for such an effect?
> I just can't find them
Please try again.
Were relevant data stored in usable message folders?
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2020-June/thread.html
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/
> after due to missed/wrong In-Reply-To headers.
How do you think about to influence the situation in ways
which can improve the desired data processing considerably?
Regards,
Markus