Keith Moore wrote:
Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code, that
code largely defines expectations for what will and will not work in practice
- often moreso than the standards themselves.
Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I actually think it's commendable
that they implemented IPv6 at all; it's not as if there's a lot of
market demand for it yet. From that viewpoint, it's not surprising that
they gave IPv6 address literals a low priority.
(Personally, I would've implemented address literals *first*, so that,
if I ran into a bug, I could isolate whether it was in DNS lookup or
not. Would've saved time in the long run, since debugging takes longer
than coding.)
--
/\
|John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
||
|God does not play games with His loyal servants. Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*? --_Good Omens_ |
\/
