Re: [YANG] so many naming scopes

While the use of many naming-scopes is understandable for the compiler is it easy to understand 
for the reader ? IMHO no.
I like Andy's proposal.
Balazs

Phil Shafer wrote:
> 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

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com

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