Re: [YANG] so many naming scopes

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:35:46PM -0500, 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?
> 
> I agree - lets not make coding styles a part of the language design.
> 

Then let's change this sentence in sec 6.2:

    All identifiers defined in a namespace MUST be unique and SHOULD NOT
    only differ in case.

Change to:

   All identifiers defined in a namespace MUST be unique.

> /js
> 

Andy

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