Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> > First, to eliminate a union from our source code. Second, to move from a
> > private type to a POSIX-standardized one that is likely to have a binding in
> > any language we move to.
>
> Just because it's POSIX doesn't mean it's any good. Unless there is stylized
> code for using sockaddr_storage, I would try hard to avoid it. There is
> nothing in there to help the type checker.
Good point.
> If the only problem with space is in the mrulist, we can fix that easily.
> All the MRU list needs is a flag to specify if the IP address is 4 or 6, the
> address, and the port number. There is extra cruft in the sockaddr_in6 so it
> wouldn't cost any space to use a non-union there. We could save the space of
> the IPv4 address with a bit of kludgery.
This might be worth doing for space-reduction reasons. I'll poke at it.
> Barf. The example URL you provided looked horrible to me.
This is me not arguing with your revulsion. :-)
> I forget what they called it, but Mesa had a sane way of handling things like
> network packets. The basic idea is that there was a way to select which
> branch of the union you wanted to use, and you told the compiler about it.
> Then you could do a select and each branch of the select could only access
> the appropriate fields.
It's called a tagged union. Rust has these. Go doesn't.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
