Re: Ip::Address::IsAnyAddr

I just see that I had send the wrong patch, sorry ...

I am resending a new one which rewrites the isIPv6 as "return !IsIPv4()"
as suggested by Alex....

If there is not any objection I will commit this patch to trunk (hopping
that it is the correct one)...

On 08/01/2011 07:04 PM, Tsantilas Christos wrote:
> On 07/29/2011 06:50 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 08:59 AM, Tsantilas Christos wrote:
>>> I am sending a version 4 of the patch which is the same with Amos patch
>>> but is a little smaller. IT is easier to see the changes.
>>
>>
>>> bool
>>> Ip::Address::IsIPv4() const
>>> {
>>> - return IsAnyAddr() || IsNoAddr() ||
>>> IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED(&m_SocketAddr.sin6_addr );
>>> + return IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED(&m_SocketAddr.sin6_addr );
>>> }
>>>
>>> bool
>>> Ip::Address::IsIPv6() const
>>> {
>>> - return IsAnyAddr() || IsNoAddr() ||
>>> !IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED(&m_SocketAddr.sin6_addr );
>>> + return !IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED(&m_SocketAddr.sin6_addr );
>>> }
>>
>> Can we rewrite IsIPv6() as "return !IsIPv4()", to clarify the intent if
>> that is indeed the intent?
>>
>> Also, the documentation for these two methods seems to imply a different
>> relationship, at least in some corner cases:
>>
>>> /** Test whether content can be used as an IPv4 address
>>> \retval true if content was received as an IPv4 address
>>> \retval true if content was received as an IPv4-Mapped address
>>> \retval false if content was received as a non-mapped IPv6 native
>>> address.
>>> */
>>> bool IsIPv4() const;
>>>
>>> /** Test whether content can be used as an IPv6 address.
>>> \retval true if --enable-ipv6 has been compiled.
>>> \retval false if --disable-ipv6 has been compiled.
>>> \retval false if --with-ipv6-split-stack has been compiled AND
>>> content is I
>>> Pv4-mapped.
>>> */
>>> bool IsIPv6() const;
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the above definitions make it possible for both
>> IsIPv4() and IsIPv6() to return true at the same time in some cases, but
>> the implementation does not support that. Thus, the docs or the
>> implementation is wrong.
>
>
> I am posting a new patch which implements the IsIPv6 as you suggested,
> and I changed a little the documentation.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>