On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 at 22:32, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Eric Smith wrote: >> Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> As it is, -1 from me. Either we only keep two concepts (Address and >>> Network), or if we introduce a third one (AddressWithMask, >>> whatever) for added practicality; but we shouldn't blur the line >>> between the two former canonical concepts under the pretext that a >>> platypus-like Address might be helpful in some particular >>> situations. >> >> I completely agree with this. By keeping the concepts distinct we can >> catch mis-uses earlier. If needed, convenience functions (or >> classes, or whatever) could be layered on top. But the underlying >> concepts need to be clear. > > That would be my view as well (this includes getting rid of the current > duality of IPNetwork by dropping the ip property, only accepting the > network address in the normal constructor and having a separate > constructor that allows a network object to be created from an arbitrary > host address and a netmask) I agree as well. If we cannot get consensus on adding a third (or rather fifth and sixth including IPv6) classes for AddressWithMask (and I am no longer an advocate of doing so), then we leave it out and, as suggested by Scott, wait and see what develops and add it later if there is demand for it. --David
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