Re: [YANG] so many naming scopes

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:56:58AM +0100, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
>
>
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> Usage guidelines and "coding styles" are valuable. But they should not
>> be part of the language itself. The example above is not ambiguous and
>> easy to parse for a machine - even though it might look stupid to most
>> humans.
>>
> I think our yardstick should be whether the example is easy to
> understand for humans. "Easy for machine" is far from enough.

Sorry, I fail to get your point. Do you want to have a rule in the
language saying "people must not use stupid identifiers"? This is
really what we are talking about here and my point is that trying to
define what makes a stupid identifier is a waste of time for the
language definition itself. A good language will deal with stupid and
non-stupid identifiers the same way.

/js

PS: We really need an April 1st RFC defining a standard for good code
    so that by claiming compliance to this RFC, we will eliminate all
    bad smelling code from the world. ;-)

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

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