On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:14:03 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:45:46AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> Except that this computer's IPv4 is not 3232235539, and I never want >> to enter it that way. I enter it as 192.168.0.19 - as four separate >> integers. > > That's partly convention (and a useful convention: it is less error- > prone than 3232235539) and partly that because you're a sys admin who > can read the individual subfields of an IP address. I'm not suggesting > you ought to change your habit. > > But to civilians, 192.168.0.19 is as opaque as 3232235539 or 0xC0A80013 > would be.
There was a lengthy discussion (or more than one) about supporting decimal unicode code point literals. Is U+03B1 (GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA) somehow less clear than X+945? 192.168.0.19 speaks volumes, but 3232235539 is not only opaque, but also obtuse. > But doing *at least some* int operations on addresses isn't meaningless: > > py> a = ipaddress.ip_address('192.168.0.19') > py> a + 1 > IPv4Address('192.168.0.20') py> a = ipaddress.ip_address('192.168.1.255') > py> a + 1 > IPv4Address('192.168.1.256') Uh, oh. py> a = ipaddress.ip_address('255.255.255.255') > py> a + 1 Mu? Yes, if I were writing a DHCP server, the notion of "the next IP address that meets certain constraints, or an exception if no such address exists" has meaning. But it's not as simple as "ip + 1." Dan _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Pythonemail@example.com https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/