On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 at 10:38, Peter Moody wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:32 AM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 at 09:16, Peter Moody wrote:
I mentioned before that IPy's insistence on receiving masked out
networks was one of the main reasons I wrote ipaddr to begin with.
Having ipaddr mimic this behavior would make it significantly less
useful. Removing functionality in the name of avoiding confusion
doesn't make sense when the same confusion can be alleviated w/o the
loss.
We're suggesting moving that functionality (accepting a non-masked IP
plus netmask and returning the corresponding Network object) into
a different constructor, not eliminating the functionality.
Do you mean a new constructor function, ala IPAddress and IPNetwork
(so the current classes remain largely the same and the various
constructors enforce certain restrictions) or something else?
At this point, I'm getting confused with the intermingling of class
and constructor names.
I mean, eg, IPv4Network.fromHostIP('192.168.1.1/24').
Or some such name.
Having another constructor that took an IPv4Address object and a mask
would probably be a good idea as well. These could be exposed as
appropriately named module level functions instead/as well, of course.
I would have IPv4Address itself be strict, and thus the new constructors
would compute the network address and call the regular IPv4Address
constructor.(*)
--David
(*) If that's the part you object to (not recording the input IP
in the Network object), then clearly you see a need to have an
AddressWithMask object of _some_ sort....
_______________________________________________
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
