>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:15:05 +0100, Manuel Valente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:45:26 +0100
> Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:30:04AM +0100, Manuel Valente wrote:
>> > Discussion: There are already a few modules which allow IP address
>> > manipulation and calculus - Net::IPv4Addr and NetAddr::IP are two such
>> > modules. At RIPE-NCC, we felt that these modules did not cover all the
>> > functionality that we needed for manipulation of IP addresses. More
>> > importantly, none of these modules allowed manipulation of IPv6
>> > addresses. The Net::IP module tries to answer to these problems and also
>> > include the functionality present in the other modules.
>>
>> If address manipulation is the purpose of the module, wouldn't Net::IPaddr
>> or Net::IPv6Addr be a better name?
> Not Net::Ipv6Addr - because it deals with IPv6 _and_ IPv4.
> Net::IPaddr: why not ? But this might create a confusion with the
> already existing modules.
Which leads my attention to another idea: didn;t you say, your module
includes the functionality present in the other modules? So wouldn't
be a takeover a natural conclusion? If the original authors agree, one
could provide continuity *and* minimize confusion. Have you thought of
that?
--
andreas
