RE: thoughts on documentation reuse.

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

If you doi this?

>   TYPEDEF STRUCT HostInetAddress {
>       DESCRIPTION
>          "Internet address for an end-station host, adhering
>           to the SMIv2 'associated objects' design approach."
> 
> ------------------------------ new stuff here ----------
>       DESCRIPTIONTAG addressdescr       
>          "An internet address SYNTAX type is composed of a address
>           type and a representational UNION containing the value."
> ------------------------------ end new stuff  ----------
> 
>       SCALAR addrType {
>          SYNTAX      InetAddressType
>          MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>          STATUS      current
>          DESCRIPTION
>              "The type of Internet address."
>       } ::= 1
> 
>       UNION addr {
>          SYNTAX      InetAddressUnion
>          STATUS      current
>          DESCRIPTION
>              "The Internet address."
>       } ::= 2
>   }
> 

Then why is the @magicalinclude below needed at all?
Can just add the DESCRIPTIONTAG if it is a fixed tag, no?
I understand it is a bit less flexible... but I am not sure we
need another generic "include text" feature.

> Then myAddress, might be redefined as (looking kind of java-tagish in
> this example, with an @ in front of the key word):
> 
>   VAR STRUCT myAddress {
>       SYNTAX      HostInetAddress
>       STATUS      current
>       DESCRIPTION
>           "Internet address of this host.
> 
>            @magicalinclude addressdescr"
>   } ::= { someBase 1 }
> 

I can tell you, if we had this for some of the RowStatus and StorageType
TCs, then we could have text inthere that explains what sort of stuff
these people MUST specify in their DESCRIPTION clauses and which they 
now often forget.

Bert