_INetGetIP

[w0uter]

send a pm to JdeB some time ago but he ignored me

so i posted it here, it went something like this:

i was looking through the includes an saw _GetIp

1. it is alot of code

2. half of it is useless since it cannot parse the ip out of the 2nd part.

3. evrything is _INet prefixed and _GetIp isnt.

(its scriptbreaking so it doesnt have to be prefixed, but it would be nice)

so i made this and i was wondering if you would want to include it standardly.

Func _INetGetIp()
    Local $v_ip = _InetGetSource ("http://checkip.dyndns.org/?rnd1=" & Random(1, 65536) & "&rnd2=" & Random(1, 65536))
    $v_ip = StringRegExp($v_ip, '((?:\d{1,3}\p){3}\d{1,3})', 1)
    If @extended Then Return $v_ip[0]
    SetError(1)
    Return -1
EndFunc ;==>_INetGetIp

its a bit faster then _GetIp

#include <Inet.au3>

Func _INetGetIp()
    Local $v_ip = _InetGetSource ("http://checkip.dyndns.org/?rnd1=" & Random(1, 65536) & "&rnd2=" & Random(1, 65536))
    $v_ip = StringRegExp($v_ip, '((?:\d{1,3}\p){3}\d{1,3})', 1)
    If @extended Then Return $v_ip[0]
    SetError(1)
    Return -1
EndFunc ;==>_INetGetIp

ConsoleWrite('my UDF:   ' & _INetGetIp() & @LF & 'standard: ' & _GetIP() & @CRLF)

$t = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10
    _INetGetIp()
Next
$t = TimerDiff($t)
ConsoleWrite($t & @LF)

$t = TimerInit()
For $i = 1 To 10
    _GetIP()
Next
$t = TimerDiff($t)
ConsoleWrite($t & @LF)

Edited November 1, 2005 by w0uter

[Jos]

send a pm to JdeB some time ago but he ignored me

I am NOT ignoring you, but will ignore this remark...

so i posted it here, it went something like this:

i was looking through the includes an saw _GetIp

1. it is alot of code

2. half of it is useless since it cannot parse the ip out of the 2nd part.

3. evrything is _INet prefixed and _GetIp isnt.

(its scriptbreaking so it doesnt have to be prefixed, but it would be nice)

I think that proposals to update UDFs should be posted in the Scripts and Scraps forum.

It is also up to the original UDF creator to update his/her UDF and submit that.

Comments on your remarks:

1. there seems to be a false idea that SHORT is good. The current code is not lengthy and made in a way that it has redundancy.

2. If there is a issue with a part of the code then its aways appreciated when a Bug report is filed.

3. We have chosen the UDF name and I am gonna stick with it now... see no real needs to rename it an possible brake scripts.

Edited November 1, 2005 by JdeB

[w0uter]

I think that proposals to update UDFs should be posted in the Scripts and Scraps forum.

could someone move this then ? thanks

It is also up to the original UDF creator to update his/her UDF and submit that.

not to be an ass or something but mine is better, why would i have to contact them ?

1. there seems to be a false idea that SHORT is good. The current code is not lengthy and made in a way that it has redundancy.

2. If there is a issue with a part of the code then its aways appreciated when a Bug report is filed.

3. We have chosen the UDF name and I am gonna stick with it now... see no real needs to rename it an possible brake scripts.

1. why isnt short good ? short is less (k)b's.

2. insead of fixing just 1 bug im trying to improve the entire function.

3. yeah thought so

Edited November 1, 2005 by w0uter

[Jos]

could someone move this then ?

Done.

not to be an ass or something but mine is better, why would i have to contact them ?

My point is that I prefer that UDF improvements are posted in this forum or to the creator of the UDF. Saves me from having to do the validation myself... The forum members are doing a lot better job there!!

1. why isnt short good ? short is less (k)b's.

Didn't say UDFs have to be Lengthy and that Short is wrong, but have seen several ppl claiming to have improved an UDF by making its shorter and stripping all error checking and readability. The focus for an UDF should be on Readability and Proper error checking not just minimal code.

Edited November 1, 2005 by JdeB