[bind10-dev] A plea for Name() rather than Name(".")

[Michael Graff]

At the last f2f meeting I really wanted to have a way to create but not
initialize a Name class.  This was because at the time of creating it I
did not yet know what I wanted there.  I was told this is a bogus
request and we should not need this, because it would cause problems in
rendering (exception) and the class should at all times be consistent.

I believe setting a Name to a default, dummy value is bad practice.  It
allows us to let what is effectively an unset value sneak through.
Rather than getting that exception, we instead get no error.  This means
we could render to wire or text "." rather than throwing an exception,
which seems to be to be against good practice.

While I'm picking on Name here, the same could be said for RRset.
Sometimes I want a container that is not yet storing anything, but will
once I get around to populating it.

--Michael