Re: [YANG] so many naming scopes

"tom.petch" writes:
>There are languages where no word is reserved, where the same symbol(word) can
>be used for label, type, module etc.  XML is arguable worse with the ability to
>start a fresh namespace on alternate lines.  These belong in the bin.

That's a very strong statement, given that the motivation for
avoiding reserved words is typically future proofing.  Don't paint
it as a universally bad feature.

For example, if I use "action" as a leaf in my model and the next
version of YANG adds a feature that uses "action" as a keyword, my
model is broken and needs repair.

Many languages reserve unused keywords just on the odds they will
need them in the future, but they are seldom right.  By keeping the
namespace of user-defined stuff out of the namespace of keywords,
YANG avoids this issue entirely.  As the number of modules defined
in YANG approaches the number that are defined in SMI, this will be
an important language feature.

Thanks,
 Phil

_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang