Peter Moody <peter <at> hda3.com> writes: > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:40 PM, James Y Knight <foom <at> fuhm.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Peter Moody wrote: > > > >> administrators) would use it, but it's doable. what you're claiming is > >> that my use case is invalid. > >> > >> that's what I claim is broken. > > > > He's claiming your solution to address your use case is confusing, not that > > the use case is invalid. > > this isn't actually true. > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: [...]
That's Steven, your original sentence was about me. > > 1) if strict=False, mask off the bits described by the netmask when creating > > an IPNetwork, such that the host bits are always 0. > > I haven't heard anyone suggest auto-masking bits, but otherwise that > would be strict=True. I would expect strict=True to raise an error if the lower bits are non-zero, not to silently erase them. strict=False would be the option that silently erases lower bits. (that's why it's named `strict`, after all :-)) > > 2) add a single new function: > > > > def parse_net_and_addr(s): > > return (IPNetwork(s), IPAddress(s.split('/')[0])) > > I've only heard talk of new classes and new methods, not new > constructor functions. Well, "method" in that context meant "class method" since the results aren't dependent on a particular instance. Of course, both a class method or a module-level function would be fine. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com