Re: [YANG] so many naming scopes

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> 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?

One reason is the augmentation of groupings that we discussed (I'm
planning to write about this disussion to the list, RSN).  If we allow
augment of groupings, then the grouping identifiers must share the
namespace with data-defs/rpc/notifs.

/martin

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