Author r.david.murray
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, benjamin.peterson, claymation, ezio.melotti, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, loewis, mattsmart, oubiwann, pitrou, pmoody, pnasrat, r.david.murray, shields
Date 2009-06-01.21:02:04
SpamBayes Score 0.00208816
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906011642160.32513@kimball.webabinitio.net>
In-reply-to <8657ee3f0906011333p28c10403p803ba5dcda563442@mail.gmail.com>
Content
> >>> ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1') == ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1/32')
> True

As a network engineer I don't see any inherent problem with that equality.
In fact I make use of that conceptual equality on a regular basis.

Further, if you were to add a specifically 'address-without-netmask'
type, the above equality would still be true, because then the above
would be comparing two addresses-with-netmasks and you would want to
apply the hostmask to a bare address for convenience.  To get inequality,
you'd be comparing two different object types...which comparison would
be False by default.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-06-01 21:02:06r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, gvanrossum, loewis, gregory.p.smith, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, benjamin.peterson, ezio.melotti, mattsmart, shields, pmoody, pnasrat, oubiwann, claymation
2009-06-01 21:02:05r.david.murraylinkissue3959 messages
2009-06-01 21:02:04r.david.murraycreate