On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:31:49PM +0200, Robert Varga wrote: > On 12/06/2019 11:25, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > That said, they do seem to declare something like > > oc-ext:regexp-posix; but it would have been much smarter to use for > > example oc-posix:regex instead of changing the semantics of the > > pattern statement. > > Yes, this would be preferable, but it has a downside: now you need to > carry the patterns twice and must make sure they are in sync. If they > are not, all sorts of implementation-dependent breakage would ensue.
Authors could simply use the YANG pattern statement as it is defined and there is zero extra cost. > The differences are far from minor where specification is concerned, but > they certainly minor in the vast majoritiy of the use cases and most > users do not even understand REs enough to know they are dealing with a > maze of twisty flavors, all alike. > > Do we have an easy way of understanding the corpus of pattern arguments > being 'out there' in real use? > > Can we engineer a workable solution for the general case without getting > everyone know the differences in RE engines? Something along the lines > of this: > https://github.com/openconfig/public/issues/44#issuecomment-501629497 > perhaps? Please lets not (even with the best intentions) create yet another regular expression flavour. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
