On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:28:34PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, "type foo {}" has a restriction while "type foo;" does not have a
> > restriction. OK, I think I see your point now that we have a case
> > where there is a subtle difference between "{}" and ";" and so you
> > suggest to interpret "type foo {}" as all values of foo?
>
> Now it becomes really interesting! :-) I wonder if there is any YANG parser
> out there that is able to distinguish those two syntactic forms. I think they
> must be considered identical by all means.
>
> My point was that the text about restrictions of the "enumeration" type is
> unclear, and IMO the more logical answer to my original question is that the
> "bar" set is empty. This is most likely not the 1.0 semantics though.
>
I see the reasoning but then having to repeat all enumerations
whenever you use foo seems not at all user friendly...
/js
--
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/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
