Re: [tlug] Portable Endianness . . . . . . . . (was Re: Portability of Misaligned Data Access)

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 29/07/06, Jim <jep200404@example.com> wrote:

> Josh Glover wrote:
>
> > How about just always using htons(3) and htonl(3) to get compatible byte orders?
>
> I do so for data communicated little-endian.
>
> For data that is communicated big-endian,
> I must write different routines, albeit similarly inspired.

Ah, I was being a bit short-sighted. I was imagining situations where
you are communicating data from a program you wrote on one machine to
a program you wrote (maybe the same one?) on another machine.

I failed to consider the case where you must respect an existing
protocol that you have no control over.

-Josh