Alex J. Avriette said:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:52:19PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> 4. My personal preference would be that if any change is made it would
>> be to insist on an unabbreviated dotted quad for ip4. Alternatively,
>> we
>
> I really think this is the wrong way to approach it. The 127.1
> convention is common, and valid. To disallow it because you haven't
> experienced it is pretty egocentric. If you would instead object on the
> grounds of it being difficult to implement, or non portable, or
> outright incorrect, I would be fine with it. But the attitude of "I've
> never seen this, and I don't like it, regardless of the documentation"
> just sucks.
>
Alex,
I think you should be a little less ready to throw around terms of
opprobrium like this.
First, note that I stated that this was my *personal* preference, and that
it only applied if a change was to be made. People here, including me,
often follow a consensus rather than their personal preferences.
Second, you state that this usage is valid. When you first raised the
matter, you were so certain that it was sanctified by standard that you
asked me if I would implement it if you could quote an RFC sanctifying it
(I said yes) and went off to find one. To your surprise, you couldn't, and
now want to say that "valid" is defined for every OS in every context by
the man page for one library call on one OS (or possibly several).
Tom has challenged you to prove that this is caused by Pg code and not
code in your native libraries. Until then, the matter should rest.
cheers
andrew
