> it strikes me as being a latter day "Go To Statement Considered > Harmful" sort of thing.
goto is harmful! > I don't disagree as a general principal, but also admit to secretly > using "set" to remove pre-existing communities from time to time, as > we all probably do, even if we don't like to admit it in public. i use 'set' very deliberately, and with no shame. i expect(ed) it to replace any existing communities. it's akin to using = as contrasted with +=. i seemed a perfectly reasonable construct with clear and useful semantics. until we found out its semantics were not so clear to some implementor(s). am i supposed to replace set 666:42 with remove *:* add 666:42 like that's not gonna be error prone. and please do not tell me that the remove *:* leaves a few special well-known communities some implementor thought should be special snowflakes. randy, under-caffeinated and clearly grumpy _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
