Talk:Parse an IP Address: Difference between revisions
(Decimal requirement) |
(→Sloppy: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hm. I'm thinking the decimal number requirement isn't necessary. Removing. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hm. I'm thinking the decimal number requirement isn't necessary. Removing. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Sloppy == |
|||
This task currently seems sloppy. |
|||
First, it requires that extra data (the port) be ignored. In practical use, if the port is being passed to a routine that parses ip addresses, this probably means the data is being mishandled. So good practice suggests that this be treated as an error case. This is a minor but annoying complexity in the task. |
|||
Second, it asks us to mix ipv4 and ipv6 addresses but ipv4 addresses have a representation as ipv6 addresses (see rfc 2373, for example) but the example implementation mixes them in the same data structure without labeling the type and without using a consistent mapping. |
|||
I can think of several ways to go here: |
|||
# Discard the port parsing requirement |
|||
# Ask for ip,port to be reported as a pair |
|||
# Ask for ipv4 and ipv6 address results to be distinguished (or put them in separate tasks) |
|||
# Ask for the ipv4 addresses to be encoded as ipv6 addresses (127.0.0.1 becomes ::127.0.0.1 to distinguish it from ::7f00:1). |
|||
# change the task to make some of these issues moot |
|||
But I am not sure which way to go here. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:58, 28 September 2011
Hm. I'm thinking the decimal number requirement isn't necessary. Removing. --Michael Mol 12:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Sloppy
This task currently seems sloppy.
First, it requires that extra data (the port) be ignored. In practical use, if the port is being passed to a routine that parses ip addresses, this probably means the data is being mishandled. So good practice suggests that this be treated as an error case. This is a minor but annoying complexity in the task.
Second, it asks us to mix ipv4 and ipv6 addresses but ipv4 addresses have a representation as ipv6 addresses (see rfc 2373, for example) but the example implementation mixes them in the same data structure without labeling the type and without using a consistent mapping.
I can think of several ways to go here:
- Discard the port parsing requirement
- Ask for ip,port to be reported as a pair
- Ask for ipv4 and ipv6 address results to be distinguished (or put them in separate tasks)
- Ask for the ipv4 addresses to be encoded as ipv6 addresses (127.0.0.1 becomes ::127.0.0.1 to distinguish it from ::7f00:1).
- change the task to make some of these issues moot
But I am not sure which way to go here. --Rdm 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)