Sebastien Roy wrote: > | inet_cidr_ntop | Volatile | Undocumented | > | inet_cidr_ntop | Volatile | Undocumented | > | inet_nsap_addr | Volatile | Undocumented | > | inet_nsap_ntoa | Volatile | Undocumented | > | inet_cidr_pton | Volatile | Documented[5] | > | inet_neta | Volatile | Documented[5] |
Why are those last two treated the same as the others? They appear to be intended to be used as programming interfaces by ordinary applications, and seem to be useful interfaces. Why should they be marked as "Volatile?" Are they in fact likely to change in incompatible ways? > Even though ISC defines the above interfaces in public header files it does > not > provide any documentation for most of the interfaces. We can not guarantee > the semantics and hence we are making no attempt to document these functions. > This is similar to what was done in previous update PSARC 1999/662. That case isn't publicly visible, but at least with the BIND server cases, I recall that we intentionally segregated the interfaces based on how they were documented upstream -- treating undocumented interfaces and those documented not to be used as Volatile (or worse), and the rest as Uncommitted or better. Does Volatile really match with the upstream behavior and the downstream usage? Or is it just a replay of "external?" -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj at workingcode.com>