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 2009-06-02.13:38:46
SpamBayes Score 0.000233685
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <8657ee3f0906020638j6af37b22m3ef36ca5d3c1d958@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <8517e9350906012350qbf035fboabb37390e920f700@mail.gmail.com>
Content
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:52 AM, pmoody <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>> As far as I can
>> tell, every developer in that category, outside of Google, that has
>> commented on this issue here or in python-dev has advocated a
>> different API.
>
> Is there some sort of conspiracy theory-ish reason that a google
> software engineer might be somehow unfairly influenced?

From reading your comments and the code, it is clear that concepts
that aren't relevant at Google have been neglected. For that reason,
developers at Google who are already familiar with ipaddr might
consider its API quite natural because of their institutionalized
thinking. But since this library is now intended for general purpose
use outside Google, I should think it is important to consult
developers outside Google who have been exposed to a broader range of
IP addressing issues. I don't believe that "good enough for Google"
ought to be our acid test.

The fact that developers outside Google seem to prefer a different API
is not new -- comments in this issue dating back several months
reflect that fact. What I don't see is a comment that explains why
their concerns were not considered.

Clay
History
Date User Action Args
2009-06-02 13:38:50claymationsetrecipients: + 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 13:38:48claymationlinkissue3959 messages
2009-06-02 13:38:47claymationcreate