[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.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list