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