Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:00:11AM -0400, Phil Shafer wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>> >I am not afraid of nonsense in data models since nonsense will not be
>> >implemented. I would leave it to compiler writers to warn about
>> >nonsense constructions a compiler can detect without requiring a
>> >statement in the language definition trying to prohibit nonsense.
>> >There are many ways to define degenerated lists in YANG; ruling out
>> >one of them does not help that much and it creates inconsistencies -
>> >why is one way to define a degenerated list forbidden but the others
>> >are legal?
>>
>> This really isn't the way standards work, right? "gcc" can warn when
>> I do something like "int foo(){ return 0; return 1;}" but it can't
>> decide that it's invalid or refuse to generate a .o file for it.
>> I can choose to tighten gcc's restrictions with -W flags, but when
>> code compiles under gcc and doesn't under clang, when one or the
>> other isn't implementing the C standard.
>
>I don't get it. I do not think the C standard says the example above
>is invalid C. It is perhaps pointless C or likely a coding error but
>as long as the semantics are clear, things are well defined.
Your comment was "nonsense will not be implemented"; my point was
that tool chains will still need to implement it regardless of
whether we think it will see use. If it's legal nonsense, a tool
chain that doesn't support it is broken.
Thanks,
Phil
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
