[Xorp-hackers] BG 172

[Hasso Tepper]

Eddie Kohler wrote:
> Sounds like there are pretty convincing reasons to drop create (or,
> more precisely, make it a synonym for set).

As I commented already in bugzilla #172, create behaves already almost as 
needed, it just doesn't complete existing intermediate node names 
(interface names, bgp peers, ospf areas etc.). Make it complete them, 
remove current set and rename create to set.

> Mark's argument about the differences in semantics is not as convincing
> now, although it seemed like it was a good idea at the time.  Question,
> though: It seems like there is no case where "set X Y Z" and "create X
> Y Z" are both valid and have different semantics.  True/false?  If
> true, that's another reason to get rid of create.

True. Set is able to change only values of non-unique leaf nodes and 
create behaves the same way with these - changes value.


-- 
Hasso Tepper