Re: [YANG] keyref

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:
> >I already made a proposal -- instead of a builtin type called keyref
> >there would be an optional clause for a leaf of leaf-list called
> >leafref that has the path-stmt from the keyref as its argument.
> 
> Your proposal called this a "documentation clause", which implies
> something targeted to humans and not usable by software.  This
> would be bad, but I would live with a distinct statement for the
> ref target that is a formal target.

Why is formal redundancy good?  If you're using a leafref, the type is
well known; it is the type if the target node.  But you still have to
specify it again.  I assume that it would be an error to say that the
leaf is of type int32, but the leafref points to a string leaf.   This
also brings up the question when two types are considered to be equal.

/martin

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