R. David Murray <rdmurray <at> bitdance.com> writes: > > I would find that acceptable but sub-optimal. Most of my use cases > (which involve manipulating router and firewall configuration files) would > then start by making a little class named AddressWithNetwork to hold the > tuple returned by your parse function, with attributes 'ip' and 'network' > and a representation that included the netmask.
If the AddressWithNetwork class has useful functionality of its own, then why not (although I think that conceptually, this functionality should belong to the Network class instead). If, however, the AddressWithNetwork class is only a recipient for a tuple, then it sounds useless. It's like having an AddressWithPort to hold things like "127.0.0.1:8080". Building little featureless recipients like that isn't really idiomatic Python, IMO. > An IPv4Address with 'network' and 'mask' attributes that could be > None would also not complicate the API, IMO, and would handle both > of these use cases. But it would be confusing and conceptually bizarre, because an address (in usually accepted terminology) doesn't have a network and a mask. I think we should keep the API clean and reasonably logical, rather than try to cover all use cases at the expense of weird shortcuts. 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
