[Python-Dev] PEP 3144 review. (original) (raw)

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Sun Sep 27 22:15:26 CEST 2009

Peter Moody <peter hda3.com> writes:

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:40 PM, James Y Knight <foom 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 parsenetandaddr(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.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list