On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Nadeau Thomas <tnad...@lucidvision.com>
wrote:

>
>         Adding Yang Doctors to the thread.
>
>         —Tom
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 2016:4:42 PM, at 4:42 PM, Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > neither RFC6020 nor RFC7950 seem to be explicit about this, so I thought
> > I'd ask.
> >
> > Are recursive, directly or transitively, extensions valid yang?
> >
>


Extensions are not recursive.
Your syntax below is valid but not meaningful.
Extension definitions are not C macros expanded on use.
Your use of external statements within the YANG extension-stmt is valid,
but they are ignored when processing the extension-stmt.

You are declaring 4 external keywords, none of which take an argument.
Each usage will validate correctly (no argument given).


 Andy

> For example:
> >
> > module foo {
> >    namespace "foo";
> >    prefix foo;
> >    yang-version 1;
> >
> >    extension a {
> >        foo:b;
> >    }
> >
> >    extension b {
> >        foo:c;
> >    }
> >
> >    extension c {
> >        foo:a;
> >    }
> >
> >    extension r {
> >        foo:r;
> >    }
> > }
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> yang-doct...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to