Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>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?
This really isn't the way standards work, right? "gcc" can warn when
I do something like "int foo(){ return 0; return 1;}" but it can't
decide that it's invalid or refuse to generate a .o file for it.
I can choose to tighten gcc's restrictions with -W flags, but when
code compiles under gcc and doesn't under clang, when one or the
other isn't implementing the C standard.
Past that, allowing pointless constructs like this allows users
to make mistakes that might not be warned by their tool chain,
and the earlier an error is caught, the lower it's cost.
Worse, allowing pointless constructs like this means that the
probability of some nitwit using it quickly approaches 1, at
which point tool chains that barf on it will need to start
supporting it.
I'm not asking us to make pointless constructs like "leaf foo {must foo==0;}"
but empty keys it truly pointless. Making it illegal is a benefit
to the enitre YANG world and not doing so it a pointless expense.
Thanks,
Phil
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
