Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On 9/14/17 13:50, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>> Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to > >>> remember. > >>> The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little > >>> symbols > >>> to remember them all. > >> I agree with Andy. I also did some experiments with printing > >> enumerations, and they work ok for small enums. But once you have > >> more than a handful they do tend to clutter the output. Even worse so > >> for trees that go into RFCs (where lines need to be < 70 characters). > > What about protecting this with an optional parameter? I certainly > > appreciate the output could be large, but I think it does have its > > uses > > sometimes. > I would agree it has its uses sometimes. > And it helps the broader community with understanding YANG, this is > good. > Now, if you are already a YANG expert, I guess you don't use the tree > output much.
Personally, I use it all the time, it is extremely useful for understanding the module. But if it has too much details it becomes less useful. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
