Re: [YANG] so many naming scopes

Andy Bierman writes:
>Yes, of course one naming scope (the term namespace is taken)
>amongst siblings, except nested typedef and grouping names
>cannot mask similar definitions within an ancestor node,
>or globally within the same module.  (This part already in the draft.)

Isn't this dancing on the line of CLR?  Where's the logic of saying
"don't do that" when there's really no ambiguity?  If I say "leaf 
foo { .. } typedef foo { .. }", my use of "type foo" is clear.
Is there a situation where isn't not clear to the compiler
what is meant?  Are we trying to get the compiler to enforce
style rules when the language proper doesn't require them?

Thanks,
 Phil

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