Lord Anton Hvornum added the comment: I was actually just thinking about the same thing, why not just add a optional flag to the already existing function. I get that people are way into backward compatibility, and I won't get into a religious fight over that particular topic as long as there's a fix for this honestly strange behavior. (It's some Windows mentality saying a /32 network doesn't contain any hosts when you come from a network background).
Seeing as this is apparently a touchy subject, I won't even try to submit a patch for this because I will screw this up. So I politely ask someone with more intricate knowledge of this library, it's history and use to add a totally optional flag that returns the single host on this very narrow network called /32. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM Eric V. Smith <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Eric V. Smith added the comment: > > Yes, due to backward compatibility constraints, the behavior is immutable. > > You might be able to argue for another method, say all_hosts(), or > something. Or maybe even a optional parameter to hosts() that defaults to > the existing behavior, but if provided, lets you select a new behavior. > > What I would not support is a change to hosts() (or a new method) that > treats a /32 network specially. > > ---------- > nosy: +eric.smith > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue31597> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue31597> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
