From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] bug in v4parseip?
Message-ID: <20030213182902.D9084@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <20030213175543.B9084@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <7e53fecd6078858c09db7ffb35383c02@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <7e53fecd6078858c09db7ffb35383c02@plan9.bell-labs.com>; from David Presotto on Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:12:25AM -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:29:02 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5c6da2b0-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:12:25AM -0500, David Presotto wrote:
>
> that still doesn't give me a definition.  I guess the implied
> definition is do whatever BSD is doing at the moment?

I was just presenting the devil's advocate position.  The present
code (presumably) matches the documented BSD behaviour and that
ought to suffice.

My guess is that only zero-insertion and elimination is permissible,
going on the limited documentation.

One could do worse than track BSD's behaviour, it is unlikely to
fly in the face of logic.  NetBSD explicitly attempts to satisfy
the Posix standards unless there is good reason to avoid it.  It
is not very different from the Plan 9 philosophy, where Posix
compatibility is just less desirable a target.

Also, NetBSD retains very strong backwards compatibility, sometimes
at great cost (and sometimes through lack of choice :-) so they
won't have a flavour-of-the-day approach to this type of issue.

++L