Are you sure you want to use the substitute here and not the replace function Hendrik is using?

My point is the following:

The variables var1 = Variable("var1", int, None, False, Variable("rax", int, 5), "some tag") and variable var2 = Variable("var1", int, None, False, Variable("rax", int, 7), "some other tag") have the hash and are equivalent, although some values differ.

Now, if you find variable var1 before variable var2, then each occurrence of var2 is also replaced by variable Variable("iVar3", int, None, False, Variable("rax", int, 5), "some tag").

There are two options, depending on what we want resp. need:

1. We say from this point on, we do not need the tags and old SSA-Variable names. Then we can ignore this information when creating the replacement variable, and both would be replaced by the same variable anyway.
2. We really only change the name, but then each variable need to be replaced by its unique new variable, i.e., we really check that we have the same object.

In general, I would prefer the second, because we do not know whether we need it later, and it is more general. However, then I think your approach is not the most efficient one, because as soon as we find a variable, it would make sense to replace it in its expression.
However, when we decide that we do not need this information after this stage, you only have to update line 56, i.e., remove the unnecessary information when copying the variable.

I get your point.
The old algorithm, which simply renamed every variable (var.name), did it like in the second approach.
But my problem was, how messy variables are handled.

I have no grantee if a variable is a real copy of some other variable, or not.
For example: Let's say we collected three times var_0, where the first and third are the same object and the second is a real copy.

If I would iterate over every variable and simply assign the .name field, the third variable would change as I'm changing the first one.
Afterwards, as the third one is being processed, if will again be renamed, destroying the name completely.
Using a set, does not help, because as you said, their hashes are the same, which results in missing collected variables.

The only other thing i could do, is to keep a list of ids of variables which I already renamed.

And we are back to the point that pseudo should be immutable.

Okay, but I think Hendrik did exactly this, considering the ids when replacing. So this is probably the cleanest way. Collecting variables according to their ids, assigning the new names and replace them with this new visitor.

Seems very complicated for such an easy thing.

Will look into his code/ask him today and probably block this request until his code is in main.

And YES, I HATE IT.
Someone would think that renaming variables would be an easy task, but nope.
Hopefully with the id's everything works.

I am not sure whether dLoopBreak0 would be easier to read. Perhaps whenever we have a separation, the first letter should again be capitalized, but I am not sure.

Hmm i get your point. We can talk about shortly tomorrow. Will make it like requested (but it's a bit ugly)

I am not saying that this is better, it was a more open question. If this is the simplest and cleanest way, I am ok with it.

My comment was a bit unclear, I like you idea better. dLoopBreak0 is way easier to read then dLoopbreak0.

My problem was rather: "How do i cleanly capitalize the char after a removed one?" (with numbers/other corner cases included). Don't know if there is a better way, maybe with RE or something.