On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
<daniel at stutzbachenterprises.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I should note that I've softened my position slightly from what I posted
>> yesterday. I could live with the following compromise:
>>
>> >>> x = IPv4Network('192.168.1.1/24')
>> >>> y = IPv4Network('192.168.1.0/24')
>> >>> x == y # Equality is the part I really want to see changed
>> True
>> >>> x.ip
>> IPv4Address('192.168.1.1')
>> >>> y.ip
>> IPv4Address('192.168.1.0')
>
> With those semantics, IPv4Network objects with distinct IP addresses (but
> the same network) could no longer be stored in a dictionary or set. IMO, it
> is a little counter-intuitive for objects to compare equal yet have
> different properties. I don't think this is a good compromise.
This worries me too. It seems like a potentially dangerous half-measure.
Mark
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4