man inet_addr
and you'll find:
All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal,
octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading
0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal;
otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal).
So a leading zero means hex. Stop trying to make it look pretty.
Standards are a good thing and need to be followed.
Jan Grant wrote:
***********************
This message has been scanned by the InterScan for CSC-SSM and found to be free
of known security risks.
***********-***********
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote:
Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal
others treat them as decimal.
There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps
it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not
correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.)
You want a ambigious example?
192.168.222.012
It amazed me that no RFC ever appears to have standardised this format
(although it is alluded to in passing as being decimal in various other
places). Eg, 1035 has:
[[[
The RDATA section of
an A line in a master file is an Internet address expressed as four
decimal numbers separated by dots without any imbedded spaces (e.g.,
"10.2.0.52" or "192.0.5.6").
]]]
(although that's DNS zone file format, not /etc/hosts.)
It's much easier to just reject octal and hexadecimal than
to work out when and when not it is ambigious. It is also
better to demand all 4 octets. It also generates less
support complaints.
I'm happy to reject octal and hex too! Anyway, count this as one (minor)
support gripe :-)
Thanks for your time,
jan
--
______ Paul T. Root
/ _ \ 1977 MGB
/ /|| \\
||\/ || _ |
|| || ||
\ ||__//
\______/
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
