Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:126c::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:126c::1:1e;
Message-ID: <50E46CC7.3080700@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:22:15 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Riccardo Bernardini <framefritti@gmail.com>
References: <50DCD850.3020106@alum.mit.edu>
	<alpine.LSU.2.00.1301021022570.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
	<50E45623.9060607@gmail.com>
	<alpine.LSU.2.00.1301021552190.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
	<50E45B21.20509@gmail.com>
	<alpine.LSU.2.00.1301021611070.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
	<50E460D0.1020308@gmail.com>
	<CABSMSPXthVjLT1e6MgoAwK+3W6-kSimE+XJ_UnKA4ZQgm3vjqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABSMSPXthVjLT1e6MgoAwK+3W6-kSimE+XJ_UnKA4ZQgm3vjqA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [abnf-discuss] Some thoughts about how to make ABNF more
 convenient to use
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org


On 1/2/2013 9:14 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> I speak from experience: I worked both with languages (like C) without
> namespaces where, to avoid clashes, you must resort to the "prefix
> trick" and languages (like Ada) where every package has its own
> namespace and I must say that it is much easier to work with the
> latter...

And to play devil's advocate, I'll note that the difference in the 
relative successes of the two languages might be relevant...

Anything like this needs to balance ease of use (non-complexity) with 
power.  There must be a compelling demand for any added complexity.

And any enhanced naming scheme must be downward compatible.  Old ruleset 
need to continue to work.


> BTW, inspired by Ada, you could use the RFC number as the namespace
> itself, e.g., RFC4566.proto-version.

Only rules from RFCs would be permitted? Not from external documents, 
such as other standards groups?

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
abnf-discuss mailing list
abnf-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss