On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Adding Yang Doctors to the thread. > > —Tom > > > > On Oct 17, 2016:4:42 PM, at 4:42 PM, Robert Varga <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > yang-doctors mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
