> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:19:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> The problem here is that enum statements aren't really restrictions but
>> rather specify the new set of values. It would be kind of discontinuos: with
>>
>> typedef bar {
>> type foo {
>> enum one;
>> enum two;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> the "bar" set would be {one, two}. If I remove the "enum two;" statement,
>> the set would be just {one}, but then if I remove the "enum one;" statement,
>> the set would again become {one, two}.
>>
>
> So what? Apparently, being able to use foo without having to repeat
> all values of foo is the main reason to define foo in the first place.
So what about this:
typedef bar {
type foo {
enum one {
if-feature fancy;
}
}
}
If "fancy" feature is supported then the "bar" set is {one}. But if it isn't
supported, then what?
Lada
>
> /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/>
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
