Kacheong Poon writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > > A union of sockaddr_in and sockaddr_in6 would be fine. > > > > I just find it hard to argue against sockaddr _in general_. > > > Are you saying that any new interface which needs to pass > IP address around _must_ use sockaddr_* regardless of > the usage? May be I am the minority here. I don't think > it will generally make code simpler nor more uniform... > It just wastes space uniformly :-} Just my $0.02...
No ... I'm saying that if it's handy for the case under consideration, then don't reject it just because it "wastes space." More importantly, don't bother inventing any new address containers. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
