28 Apr
2011
28 Apr
'11
12:35 p.m.
On 4/28/11 11:27 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/4/28 Henning
Westerholt<henning.westerholt(a)1und1.de>de>:
As mentioned in previous email, not even the above syntax should work as
expected -- it would be a surprise, maybe due to ser enhancements. But a
pseudo-variable in the left side implies string or integer comparison.
But for sure when it is a PV in the right side, then it is not working.
Btw, when was the idea that IP comparison is string comparison thrown
here, I missed any email?!? To be sure the comparison is done right,
then the string with the IPs have to be converted to binary and the
results compared.
Cheers,
Daniel
Hello,
i like to also not see much more of this small utility modules, in the end its
just a text operation, as you've said.
Ok. I'm coding it right now in a
new module but just for testing
purposes (which is easier than modify existing core parts).
Another question, have you thought about
extending the existing "equals"
operator that it works also for IPv6 address? Just like for IPv4 addresses
where it already understands network masks, e.g.:
if ($si == 192.168.1.1/32) {..}
if ($si == 192.168.1.1) {..}
it could do this binary comparison inside as well for v6.
Interesting. However, in
case the second argument is a pv (i.e.
retrieved from a DB) "equal" operator would not work as expected, am I
right? This is the reason I'm coding a function
"compare_ips" which allow
IPv4, IPv6, IPv6-reference (string or pv).
Maybe another function could be created: is_ip_in(IP, NETWORK)