Message88678
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| 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年06月01日.21:02:04 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.002088164 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0906011642160.32513@kimball.webabinitio.net> |
| In-reply-to |
<8657ee3f0906011333p28c10403p803ba5dcda563442@mail.gmail.com> |
| Content |
> >>> ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1') == ipaddr.IPv4('192.168.1.1/32')
> True
As a network engineer I don't see any inherent problem with that equality.
In fact I make use of that conceptual equality on a regular basis.
Further, if you were to add a specifically 'address-without-netmask'
type, the above equality would still be true, because then the above
would be comparing two addresses-with-netmasks and you would want to
apply the hostmask to a bare address for convenience. To get inequality,
you'd be comparing two different object types...which comparison would
be False by default. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2009年06月01日 21:02:06 | r.david.murray | set | recipients:
+ r.david.murray, gvanrossum, loewis, gregory.p.smith, Rhamphoryncus, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, benjamin.peterson, ezio.melotti, mattsmart, shields, pmoody, pnasrat, oubiwann, claymation |
| 2009年06月01日 21:02:05 | r.david.murray | link | issue3959 messages |
| 2009年06月01日 21:02:04 | r.david.murray | create |
|