Author claymation
Recipients Rhamphoryncus, benjamin.peterson, claymation, ezio.melotti, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, loewis, mattsmart, oubiwann, pitrou, pmoody, pnasrat, r.david.murray, shields
Date 2009-06-02.01:27:41
SpamBayes Score 0.000590561
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <8657ee3f0906011827i66102aecg65dadebe1e443dd7@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <8517e9350906011351v53086feo30c43efde3b4dfe6@mail.gmail.com>
Content
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM, pmoody <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>>>>> ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1') == ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1/32')
>> True
>>
>> ipaddr makes no distinction between two fundamentally different
>> concepts -- to my mind, that is a serious flaw.
>
> I don't see these a fundamentally different, I guess.  can you
> demonstrate how this equivalency makes ipaddr unusable?

Fortunately, it's not up for debate: RFC-791 defines an IP address as
a 32-bit number, with no provision for a mask. Networks are defined by
their address and their mask. To correctly model them in an
object-oriented system, we would say that a Network has-a Address,
certainly not that a Network is-a Address.

> I haven't seen any new issues on code.google.com (and I haven't heard
> of any being reported on the python bugtracker), so since you're using
> this thread to report issues, can you elaborate?

I will go ahead and open issues on code.google.com.

> have used it to develop software and will continue to use it to
> develop software.

I'd like to hear from application developers outside of Google. The
two that have commented on this issue seem not to prefer ipaddr's API.

Clay
History
Date User Action Args
2009-06-02 01:27:44claymationsetrecipients: + claymation, gvanrossum, loewis, gregory.p.smith, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, benjamin.peterson, ezio.melotti, mattsmart, shields, pmoody, pnasrat, r.david.murray, oubiwann
2009-06-02 01:27:42claymationlinkissue3959 messages
2009-06-02 01:27:41claymationcreate