On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:16:55PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently we have an inconsistency in
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-05. With Y35, we allow type empty in
> unions. But section 7.8.2 says:
>
> A leaf that is part of the key can be of any built-in or derived
> type, except it MUST NOT be the built-in type "empty".
>
> This means that this is legal:
>
> typedef my-empty {
> type union {
> type empty;
> }
> }
>
> list foo {
> key id;
> leaf id {
> type my-empty;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> I suggest we allow type empty also in keys:
>
> NEW:
>
> A leaf that is part of the key can be of any built-in or derived
> type.
And my understanding is that the list foo defined above will never
have an instance, correct? I assume decent compilers will continue to
create warnings when they can decide that a list will never have any
instances. (And yes, there are other ways to construct such lists, so
I am OK with removing a constraint preventing a specific case of such
useless lists.)
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
