On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 at 22:32, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Eric Smith wrote:
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
As it is, -1 from me. Either we only keep two concepts (Address and
Network), or if we introduce a third one (AddressWithMask,
whatever) for added practicality; but we shouldn't blur the line
between the two former canonical concepts under the pretext that a
platypus-like Address might be helpful in some particular
situations.
I completely agree with this. By keeping the concepts distinct we can
catch mis-uses earlier. If needed, convenience functions (or
classes, or whatever) could be layered on top. But the underlying
concepts need to be clear.
That would be my view as well (this includes getting rid of the current
duality of IPNetwork by dropping the ip property, only accepting the
network address in the normal constructor and having a separate
constructor that allows a network object to be created from an arbitrary
host address and a netmask)
I agree as well. If we cannot get consensus on adding a third (or
rather fifth and sixth including IPv6) classes for AddressWithMask
(and I am no longer an advocate of doing so), then we leave it out and,
as suggested by Scott, wait and see what develops and add it later if
there is demand for it.
--David
_______________________________________________
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
