This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author Lord Anton Hvornum
Recipients Lord Anton Hvornum, eric.smith, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2017-09-26.20:46:30
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
I was actually just thinking about the same thing, why not just add a
optional flag to the already existing function.
I get that people are way into backward compatibility, and I won't get into
a religious fight over that particular topic as long as there's a fix for
this honestly strange behavior. (It's some Windows mentality saying a /32
network doesn't contain any hosts when you come from a network background).

Seeing as this is apparently a touchy subject, I won't even try to submit a
patch for this because I will screw this up.
So I politely ask someone with more intricate knowledge of this library,
it's history and use to add a totally optional flag that returns the single
host on this very narrow network called /32.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM Eric V. Smith <>

> Eric V. Smith added the comment:
> Yes, due to backward compatibility constraints, the behavior is immutable.
> You might be able to argue for another method, say all_hosts(), or
> something. Or maybe even a optional parameter to hosts() that defaults to
> the existing behavior, but if provided, lets you select a new behavior.
> What I would not support is a change to hosts() (or a new method) that
> treats a /32 network specially.
> ----------
> nosy: +eric.smith
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <>
> <>
> _______________________________________
Date User Action Args
2017-09-26 20:46:30Lord Anton Hvornumsetrecipients: + Lord Anton Hvornum, eric.smith, serhiy.storchaka
2017-09-26 20:46:30Lord Anton Hvornumlinkissue31597 messages
2017-09-26 20:46:30Lord Anton Hvornumcreate