[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 16:34:14 PDT 2021


On 24-Aug-21 00:31, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Am 23.08.2021 um 13:51 schrieb tom petch:
>> On 22/08/2021 21:36, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
>>> Shouldn't we be handling YANG modules differently, i.e. using some
>>> system for handling diffs and issues in code? Handling them as if
>>> they are English text make no sense.
>>
>> Yes!  Most of the languages I have dealt with have the concept of
>> sequence numbers, so that when you drop the card deck on the floor, you
>> can sort it back into order, but that is now history!  I note that some
>> AD reviews use line numbers for their comments, I think generated by ID
>> nits.
>>
>> The better authors of YANG, like the better authors of other languages,
>> make extensive use of comments which can then be used for identifying
>> 'sections' (as well as providing a narrative that can be read to get an
>> overview of the module).  Perhaps that needs formalising.
>> ...
> 
> Would adding optional line numbers to artwork/sourcecode help?

That's better than nothing, for sure. However, I'm old enough to
remember that old-fashioned programmers would initially number
their Fortran statements 00100, 00200, 00300 etc., so that when
adding new statements to fix a bug, the numbers could stay in
order and the rest of the card deck didn't need to be renumbered.
Sequential numbering is not the perfect answer.

   Brian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list