Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Please could someone who understands the uses of IPNetwork better than I do explain why the following wouldn't be a significant problem, if __eq__ and __hash__ were modified to disregard the .ip attribute as suggested:linus = IPv4Network('172.16.200.1/24') snoopy = IPv4Network('172.16.200.3/24') fqdn = {linus: 'linus.peanuts.net', snoopy: 'snoopy.peanuts.net'} fqdn[linus] # expecting 'linus.peanuts.net''snoopy.peanuts.net' Is this just a problem of education, teaching the users not to abuse IPv4Network this way? Or is this just an unlikely use of IPv4Network? Or have I misunderstood the proposal altogether?
This gets at why I suggested the docs be organized as I suggested, with 'Network is range of addresses defined by address within range ...' and 'Definition address is retained' *immediately* followed by 'Definition address is mostly ignored, including for comparisons'. The latter caveat should mention the implication for hash() and set/dict membership. The point is to emphasize from the beginning that a network is a network (with an address, that many will ignore), rather than an address (with a network).
Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ 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
