On 10/18/2016 09:06 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
Hello Martin,
>
> Here's a real (and meaningful) example of a "recursive" extension:
>
> extension substatement {
> argument name {
> tailf:arg-type {
> type string;
> }
> }
> tailf:use-in "extension";
> tailf:occurence "*";
>
> tailf:substatement "tailf:occurence"; // <-- reference to self
> description
> "Specifies which statements can occur as substatement to the
> given statement.";
> }
>
> This is not different from how the core YANG statements can be used;
> e.g., you can use "container" within "container".
I though it may be useful for a complex set of language extensions,
thanks for confirming.
Regards,
Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
