Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > -1. I think 'network.number' or 'network.zero' is a lot clearer than > 'network.network'. Maybe '.broadcast' would be okay, as long as it > /can/ be adjusted for those unusual, or maybe even only hypothetical, > networks where it is not the [-1].
Maybe this is something that differs by country, but I have *never* heard the first address in an IP network (i.e. every bit not covered by the netmask set to zero) referred to as anything other than the "network address". Similarly, the last address (every bit not covered by the netmask set to one) is referred to as the "broadcast address", even if the relevant RFCs don't actually guarantee that. Anyone tasked to deal with a network that is sufficient unusual to break those two conventions is almost certainly going to have bigger problems than the proposed meanings for ipnet.network and ipnet.broadcast not giving the correct answer for their specific situation. And if someone does need to deal with that, then they create an appropriate subclass or use a less lightweight IP addressing library. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
