> OK, I'll chime back in on the thread I started... I mostly have a > question for Sean, since he seems to know the networking stuff well. I'll chime in nevertheless. > Do you know of any reason why my original proposal (which is to allows > IP addresses prefixed with <numeric> e.g. <numeric>127.0.0.1 to cause > both the AI_PASSIVE _and_ AI_NUMERIC flags to get set when resolution > is attempted, which basically causes parsing with not real resolution > at all) would break any known or plausible networking standards? What are those flags? Which API uses them? I still don't understand why intercepting the all-numeric syntax isn't good enough, and why you want a <numeric> prefix. > The current Python socket module basically hides this part of the > BSD socket API, and I find it quite useful to be able to suppress > DNS activity absolutely for some addresses. And for Guido: since > this type of tag has already been used in Python (as <broadcast>), > is there any reason why this solution is inelegant? The reason I'm reluctant to add a new notation is that AFAIK it would be unique to Python. It's better to stick to standard notations IMO. <broadcast> was probably a mistake, since it seems to mean the same as 0.0.0.0 (for IPv4). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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