On 16 Jan 2001 21:57:51 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) wrote:
> >>>>> 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?
I have - but this is the first time I'm sending a module to CPAN - I was not sure of
what the best way to do it was, and my goal was to try to get the module on CPAN on a
relatively short notice. Perhaps a merging could be considered once the usefulness of
the new module has been established ?
--
Manuel Valente - RIPE NCC
