Message279862
| Author |
era |
| Recipients |
era, ncoghlan, xiang.zhang |
| Date |
2016年11月01日.09:31:41 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1477992702.65.0.966469620649.issue28577@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Quick googling did not turn up anything like a credible authoritative reference for this, but in actual practice, I have seen /32 used to designate a single individual IP address in CIDR notation quite a lot.
I can see roughly three options:
1. Status quo. Silently surprise users who expect this to work.
2. Silently fix. Hard-code /32 to return a range of one IP address.
3. Let users choose. Similarly to the "strict=True" keyword argument in the constructor method, the code could allow for either lenient or strict semantics.
By the by, I don't see how the bug you linked to is relevant here, did you mistype the bug number? #27863 is about _elementtree |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2016年11月01日 09:31:42 | era | set | recipients:
+ era, ncoghlan, xiang.zhang |
| 2016年11月01日 09:31:42 | era | set | messageid: <1477992702.65.0.966469620649.issue28577@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016年11月01日 09:31:42 | era | link | issue28577 messages |
| 2016年11月01日 09:31:41 | era | create |
|