On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I implemented most of the 1.1 features that affect the compiler in > > > pyang on the flight back from Yokohama. (if you have 1.1 modules, I'd > > > appreciate if you could try it out). > > > > > > In doing this, I realized that I forgot one part of Y10 - "allow > > > restrictions on enumerations". If we allow: > > > > > > typedef foo2 { > > > type enumeration { > > > enum a; > > > enum b; > > > } > > > } > > > typedef bar2 { > > > type foo2 { > > > enum a; > > > } > > > } > > > > > > we should also allow: > > > > > > typedef foo2 { > > > type bits { > > > bit a; > > > bit b; > > > } > > > } > > > typedef bar2 { > > > type foo2 { > > > bit a; > > > } > > > } > > > > > > It is briefly mentioned in the description of Y10. > > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > Yet more complexity without any real use-cases? > > It is a matter of removing CLRs and inconsistencies. > > > How does auto-numbering work in both cases? > > > > > > typedef foo2 { > > type enumeration { > > enum a; > > enum b; > > } > > } > > > > typedef foo3 { > > type foo2 { > > enum b; > > } > > } > > > > typedef bar1 { > > type enumeration { > > enum b; > > } > > } > > > > > > What is the auto-numbering of enum 'b' in type foo3? > > There is none. The text says: > > When an existing enumeration type is restricted, the "value" > statement MUST either have the same value as in the base type or not > be present, in which case the value is the same as in the base type. > > good Is the refinement allowed to add, remove, or change if-feature-stmts? I don't remember seeing any text on that. > > What value does type foo3 have over bar1? > > Unless the type has some semantics, there is none. But when the type > has some semantics, the possibility to restrict an existing type is > useful. If it not useful for enumerations and bits, why should we > have it for strings and ints, for example. > > so the reason to do this would be to restrict the value set but maintain the value and position assignments. OK > /martin > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
