Re: Strange input/cast semantics for inet

Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 06:38:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> > > The normal way to read "1.10" would be as synonymous with "1.0.0.10".
> >
> > That might be the case for IPv6, but it's never been a standard
> > convention for IPv4; and even for IPv6 it doesn't make any sense
> > for a network (as opposed to host) number.

It has always been the convention for IPv4 for as long as the dotted notation
existed. In fact it took a while before the full dotted quad notation really
became dominant. For a long time it wasn't clear how large a final segment
would become the most popular with many people using 16-bit network masks.

> I don't know if it's ever been blessed by a formal standard

It's blessed by POSIX:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/inet_addr.html

I'm really skeptical Vixie would have written things this way. Perhaps
somebody at some point later misunderstood the convention and "fixed" the
behaviour?

--
greg