Re: [WebDNA] Don't change [ipaddress] ...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2015
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 111853
interpreted = N
texte = Nothing wrong with your approach either, however here's my opinion since you brought it up: 1- [realIP] is a whole lot faster and easier to type than [ipaddress format=standard/clean] 2- The internal code inside the WebDNA engine would probably be more complex if it has to consider optional parameters when it encounters [ipaddress. 3- Adding optional parameters to a tag that never had them before means the C++ programmer (probably wouldn't but) could possibly "screw up" and accidentally break [ipaddress] -- whereas with a new tag he wouldn't even be touching that internal code so he could not break it. 4- To me it is cleaner to add a new tag rather than make us modify our use of an existing tag, especially when the vast majority of us will probably never use [ipaddress] again anyways after [realIP] becomes available! This reminds me of years ago when Grant asked for suggestions. One of them was to create a webdna comment context. I argued that we don't need it because using [showif x=y] would work fine to hide any code we felt like commenting out ... FORTUNATELY my suggestion was ignored, and ever since we have enjoyed the benefit of the faster and easier to type [!]. I think the same lesson applies here: Let's just keep things as simple as possible and add a new [realIP] tag -- or make things super short-and-sweet with [ip]. :) Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management On 01/12/2015 11:48 AM, Brian Burton wrote: > Why not [ipaddress format=standard/clean]? if no format is > specified, the default behavior is the same as today, if the > format is specified to be “clean” then no extra zeros. This is > more inline with the other WebDNA tags and doesn’t add more > clutter to the language. > > -BBB > >> On Jan 12, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Kenneth Grome >>
wrote: >> >>> Maybe it's better that the WSC resources be put to other >>> uses like fixing the IPaddress format. >> >> For clarification, I never suggested changing or "fixing" >> the existing [ipaddress] format. >> >> And I would never make such a suggestion because it would >> break the work-around code many of us have been using for >> years to get rid of the extraneous leading zeros produced by >> [ipaddress]. >> >> On the other hand, a *new* [realIP] tag that gives us the >> real ip address -- without the undesirable leading zeros -- >> would definitely be a welcome improvement. >> >> Regards, Kenneth Grome > > > --------------------------------------------------------- This > message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the > mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: > http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: > support@webdna.us >
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Nothing wrong with your approach either, however here's my opinion since you brought it up: 1- [realIP] is a whole lot faster and easier to type than [ipaddress format=standard/clean] 2- The internal code inside the WebDNA engine would probably be more complex if it has to consider optional parameters when it encounters [ipaddress. 3- Adding optional parameters to a tag that never had them before means the C++ programmer (probably wouldn't but) could possibly "screw up" and accidentally break [ipaddress] -- whereas with a new tag he wouldn't even be touching that internal code so he could not break it. 4- To me it is cleaner to add a new tag rather than make us modify our use of an existing tag, especially when the vast majority of us will probably never use [ipaddress] again anyways after [realIP] becomes available! This reminds me of years ago when Grant asked for suggestions. One of them was to create a webdna comment context. I argued that we don't need it because using [showif x=y] would work fine to hide any code we felt like commenting out ... FORTUNATELY my suggestion was ignored, and ever since we have enjoyed the benefit of the faster and easier to type [!]. I think the same lesson applies here: Let's just keep things as simple as possible and add a new [realIP] tag -- or make things super short-and-sweet with [ip]. :) Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management On 01/12/2015 11:48 AM, Brian Burton wrote: > Why not [ipaddress format=standard/clean]? if no format is > specified, the default behavior is the same as today, if the > format is specified to be “clean” then no extra zeros. This is > more inline with the other WebDNA tags and doesn’t add more > clutter to the language. > > -BBB > >> On Jan 12, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Kenneth Grome >> wrote: >> >>> Maybe it's better that the WSC resources be put to other >>> uses like fixing the IPaddress format. >> >> For clarification, I never suggested changing or "fixing" >> the existing [ipaddress] format. >> >> And I would never make such a suggestion because it would >> break the work-around code many of us have been using for >> years to get rid of the extraneous leading zeros produced by >> [ipaddress]. >> >> On the other hand, a *new* [realIP] tag that gives us the >> real ip address -- without the undesirable leading zeros -- >> would definitely be a welcome improvement. >> >> Regards, Kenneth Grome > > > --------------------------------------------------------- This > message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the > mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: > http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: > support@webdna.us >
Kenneth Grome
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Before I Can Begin . . . (1998)
Latest Version of WebDNA store (2002)
Mac Vs WindowsNT (1997)
[random] only for 1-100??? (1997)
WebCat2b12 - nesting [tags] (1997)
A little syntax help (1997)
[WebDNA] Putting '&search' into URL killing all search contexts on my sites (2010)
GetPOPmail (2000)
I'm new be kind (1997)
Up and running ... at last !! (1997)
AutoCommit Preference? (1998)
HTML Editors (1997)
Trouble with formula.db (1997)
Attn iTools / WebCat users.... (2004)
Access Denied! But why? (1997)
How to Display text in empty fields (1997)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
[OT] ImageMagick error (2004)
Deadlock (1999)
[WebDNA] Base 64 (2010)