Clay McClure <c...@daemons.net> added the comment:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM, pmoody <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>>>>> ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1') == ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1/32')
>> True
>>
>> ipaddr makes no distinction between two fundamentally different
>> concepts -- to my mind, that is a serious flaw.
>
> I don't see these a fundamentally different, I guess. can you
> demonstrate how this equivalency makes ipaddr unusable?
Fortunately, it's not up for debate: RFC-791 defines an IP address as
a 32-bit number, with no provision for a mask. Networks are defined by
their address and their mask. To correctly model them in an
object-oriented system, we would say that a Network has-a Address,
certainly not that a Network is-a Address.
> I haven't seen any new issues on code.google.com (and I haven't heard
> of any being reported on the python bugtracker), so since you're using
> this thread to report issues, can you elaborate?
I will go ahead and open issues on code.google.com.
> have used it to develop software and will continue to use it to
> develop software.
I'd like to hear from application developers outside of Google. The
two that have commented on this issue seem not to prefer ipaddr's API.
Clay
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue3959>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
