📊 Quantitative test results for language: eng, year: 2023, size: 10K, paranoia level: 1:
🚀 Quantitative testing did not detect new false positives

Hi @fgsch 👋!

Thanks for this PR, I've added one comment to the rules-check script - I don't insist that suggestion, rather I'm curious your (and other devs') opinion.

Hi @fgsch 👋!

Thanks for this PR, I've added one comment to the rules-check script - I don't insist that suggestion, rather I'm curious your (and other devs') opinion.

👋 @airween.

Personally, given that these transformations were deprecated 15 years ago, and the fix is just one character away, I'd be more inclined to remove the old variants, but I'm not sure if the script is meant to be used outside this repository.

I'm equally happy to rework this PR to only update the rules and keep the Python script as is, thus allowing both forms.
The downside of keeping both is that someone could reintroduce the old variants at a later time, but I suppose the chances of this are low and will probably be caught during review.

Hi @fgsch,

Personally, given that these transformations were deprecated 15 years ago, and the fix is just one character away, I'd be more inclined to remove the old variants, but I'm not sure if the script is meant to be used outside this repository.

I'm equally happy to rework this PR to only update the rules and keep the Python script as is, thus allowing both forms. The downside of keeping both is that someone could reintroduce the old variants at a later time, but I suppose the chances of this are low and will probably be caught during review.

meanwhile I thought about the issue and I think in case of CRS we should completely disallow the old syntax in both cases. I think the PR is ready, you don't need to do anything else. I'm going to open the necessary issues and will send PR's to fix this in affected repositories.

And thank you again you brought up this topic.