[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: arpa_inet_h: new module, replaces inet_ntop

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: arpa_inet_h: new module, replaces inet_ntop
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:44:38 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> It would replace the
>> inet_ntop module, and lib/inet_ntop.h would be removed.
>> With this, files only need to #include <arpa/inet.h> for inet_ntop or
>> inet_pton, just like it should be.
> How would this work on platforms which have an <arpa/inet.h> already
> but don't have and don't declare the inet_ntop() function? Such as
> Solaris 7 and many other platforms.

Ah, good catch.

So perhaps we should have two modules here:

"arpa_inet": Provides an arpa/inet.h on systems that lack it.  The
header is needed on mingw to provide declarations for ntohl, ntohs,
etc (by depending on and including sys/socket, which includes
winsock2.h).  It would also help remove #if HAVE_ARPA_INET_H tests.

"inet": Implements inet_?to? and has a header file inet.h that
applications should include.


One question here is whether arpa_inet should depend on inet?  Then
the arpa_inet module would provide the inet_ntop/inet_pton functions
when necessary, which arguable (?) should be provided when arpa/inet.h
is provided.

The disadvantage is, of course, that applications that depend on
arpa_inet and need inet_?to? will have to include both arpa/inet.h and
inet.h to make sure they get the inet_?to? declarations.  So there
isn't really a need for "arpa_inet" to explicitly depend on "inet",
the user of these modules will have to make sure he's using both
manually anyway.

I think I'll start working on this approach.  Whether the dependency
is there explicitly or not can be decided later.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]