Thus spake Mark Volpe
> I'm constructing a new type "ip4" as a unified replacement to inet and
> cidr,
> to hopefully relieve some of the confusion involving those types.
> Would anyone be interested?
Yikes! Please be very careful. We went through a lot of work to get
it right. The fact that there are two types was a bit of a compromise
to get what everyone wanted into the system. Note that the underlying
routines are exactly the same anyway. The difference is all in the
input and output and pretty minor at that but the differences are
essential.
If you are talking about the recent discussions, we do have some issues
to resolve but making one type won't clarify the situation. I think
we are pretty sure about what to do. Someone just needs to find time
to do it.
If you found the dual types confusing, maybe the problem is in the
documentation. I am assuming from your offer that you have spent some
time studying the type and understand the point of both so perhaps
you can attack the documentation instead.
Oh, and if ip4 means IPv4, that's a step backwards. The current types
are designed to be easily extended to handle IPv6 in the same types.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
