On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:40:22PM -0400, Phil Shafer wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >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.) > > Doesn't removing the prohibition require us to accept such nonsense? >
I am not afraid of nonsense in data models since nonsense will not be implemented. I would leave it to compiler writers to warn about nonsense constructions a compiler can detect without requiring a statement in the language definition trying to prohibit nonsense. There are many ways to define degenerated lists in YANG; ruling out one of them does not help that much and it creates inconsistencies - why is one way to define a degenerated list forbidden but the others are legal? /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
