> If you already have the 32-bits value, there is no point in parsing it, so there is no point in supporting it in the address text parser.
There is a point when the only interface to that program is via text. You still have to convert the 32-bit value to text, but there's a difference between that and converting it to IPv4's dot notation. The former is simpler.
> It's not worth saving typing 4-5 characters from times to times.
I don't think the main users of the feature are people manually typing those addresses.
> Before reading the article, I would have assumed for example that 127.1 would be 127.1.0.0, not 127.0.0.1.
But then it wouldn't be a valid IP.
Re:Curl those funny IPv4 addresses
by LambdaComplex on Monday April 19, 2021 @02:19PM
(#26866215)
> > Before reading the article, I would have assumed for example that 127.1 would be 127.1.0.0, not 127.0.0.1.
> But then it wouldn't be a valid IP.
127.1.0.0 is a perfectly valid IP address. The loopback range is a /8.
Like the article mention, supporting obscure features just makes it more likely that they can be exploited for nefarious purposes. It's not worth saving typing 4-5 characters from times to times.
Before reading the article, I would have assumed for example that 127.1 would be 127.1.0.0, not 127.0.0.1.