News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Curl those funny IPv4 addresses by jolmg on Monday April 19, 2021 @11:06AM (#26863533)
> 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.

Re:Curl those funny IPv4 addresses by jolmg on Monday April 19, 2021 @02:57PM (#26866613)
You're right. I got confused a bit.