Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
> "Steve Holden" wrote:
>
>> Jeez, doesn't anyone read the fine manual any more? I hope this was just
>> an academic exercise.
>>
> socket.inet_ntoa(struct.pack("!l", 10))
>> '59.154.202.0'
>> Holden's rule: when it looks simple enough to be worth including i
"Steve Holden" wrote:
> Jeez, doesn't anyone read the fine manual any more? I hope this was just
> an academic exercise.
>
> >>> socket.inet_ntoa(struct.pack("!l", 10))
> '59.154.202.0'
> >>>
>
> Holden's rule: when it looks simple enough to be worth including in the
> standard library
On 10 Feb., 21:28, r0g wrote:
> def inet2ip(n, l=[], c=4):
> if c==0: return ".".join(l)
> p = 256**( c-1 )
> l.append( str(n/p) )
> return inet2ip( n-(n/p)*p, l, c-1 )
> The results for 1
> iterations of each were as follows...
>
> 0.113744974136 seconds for old INET->IP method
> 27
On Feb 10, 9:28 pm, r0g wrote:
> def ip2inet(a):
> li = a.split('.')
> assert len(li) == 4 or len(li) == 6
> return reduce(add,[int(li[e])*(256**((len(li)-1)-e)) for e in
> xrange(0,len(li))])
Aagh! Notice that functional programming is not about filter, map,
reduce and other unreadable con
Terry Reedy wrote:
> r0g wrote:
>
>>
>> def inet2ip(n):
>> p = (n/16777216)
>> q = ((n-(p*16777216))/65536)
>> r = ((n-((p*16777216)+(q*65536)))/256)
>> s = ((n-((p*16777216)+(q*65536)+(r*256
>> return str(p)+"."+str(q)+"."+str(r)+"."+str(s)
>
> Beyond what other wrote:
> To future-
> This is a fantastically didactic newsgroup: you start off just musing about
> , you end up learning python has ,
> brilliant :-)
+1 !!
Malcolm
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
> Here a small benchmark:
>
> def ip2inet01(a): # can't be used with 6
> li = a.split('.')
Wow, thanks everybody for all the suggestions, v.interesting esp as I
didn't even ask for any suggestions! This is a fantastically didactic
newsgroup: you start off jus
r0g wrote:
def inet2ip(n):
p = (n/16777216)
q = ((n-(p*16777216))/65536)
r = ((n-((p*16777216)+(q*65536)))/256)
s = ((n-((p*16777216)+(q*65536)+(r*256
return str(p)+"."+str(q)+"."+str(r)+"."+str(s)
Beyond what other wrote:
To future-proof code, use // instead of / for integer di
Here a small benchmark:
def ip2inet01(a): # can't be used with 6
li = a.split('.')
assert len(li) == 4
a = int(li[0])*16777216
b = int(li[1])*65536
c = int(li[2])*256
d = int(li[3])
return a+b+c+d
from itertools import count
def ip2inet02(a):
blocks = a.split('.')
For expressiveness, try something like:
def ip2in(dotted_ip_addr):
result = 0
assert dotted_ip_addr.count('.') in (3, 7)
for chunk in dotted_ip_addr.split('.'):
result = (result << 8) + int(chunk)
return result
def inet2ip(ip_number):
assert 0 < ip_number < 1 << 48
r0g writes:
> def inet2ip(n):
> p = (n/16777216)
> q = ((n-(p*16777216))/65536)
> r = ((n-((p*16777216)+(q*65536)))/256)
> s = ((n-((p*16777216)+(q*65536)+(r*256
> return str(p)+"."+str(q)+"."+str(r)+"."+str(s)
from struct import pack
def inet2ip(n):
xs = pack('L',n)
return '.'.
r0g wrote:
> def ip2inet(a):
> li = a.split('.')
> assert len(li) == 4 or len(li) == 6
> return reduce(add,[int(li[e])*(256**((len(li)-1)-e)) for e in
> xrange(0,len(li))])
what a mess.
i don't use this extreme a functional style in python (it's not really how
the language is intended to be
I remember being forced to do a bit of functional programming in ML back
at Uni in the mid 90, the lecturers were all in a froth about it and I
must admit the code was elegant to look at. The problem was the dog slow
performance for anything half practical, especially with recursion being
the techn
13 matches
Mail list logo
