On 12/9/14 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:31 AM, t.p. <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com> wrote:
The expression that controls the permissible format of IPv6 addresses in
yang-types is of this ilk.
" type string {
pattern '((:|[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}):)([0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}:){0,5}'
+ '((([0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}:)?(:|[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}))|'
+ '(((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]?[0-9])\.){3}'
+ '(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]?[0-9])))'
+ '(/(([0-9])|([0-9]{2})|(1[0-1][0-9])|(12[0-8])))';
pattern '(([^:]+:){6}(([^:]+:[^:]+)|(.*\..*)))|'
+ '((([^:]+:)*[^:]+)?::(([^:]+:)*[^:]+)?)'
+ '(/.+)'; "
which was got wrong several times before it became what it is now (which
rings alarm bells for me).
Wow, so there's no way to do this ABNF-style?
This is certainly something to be concerned about. A syntax that is difficult
to internalize without working on it full-time is not a good idea. OTOH, it's
hard to have a syntax that is not at least _somewhat_ difficult to internalize
if you aren't working on it full time, so to some extent this is a matter of
degree.
I would concur that is something that the everyday yang user should
never have to do on a regular basis. If we do, then we need to fix
this. I believe this is why libraries were invented.
tim