[Tagging] RFC 2 - addr:interval
jmapb at gmx.com
Wed Jan 6 20:54:40 UTC 2021
On 1/6/2021 3:02 PM, Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 06.01.21 à 19:47, Jmapb a écrit :
>> Can we do better than that with current tags?
This is less than ideal for a few reasons:
- It's not exactly the "truth on the ground." (It asserts the
existence of 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, and 188. We don't really know if
they exist, we only know where they would fall *if* they exist.)
- It no longer matches the literal "174-190", which for all a mapper
knows, is in fact the form of the address that's actually in use.
- It's awkward for a casual mapper to comprehend and maintain.
(My interpolation hack definitely fails the last test, but passes the
More information about the Tagging