STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment:
> I may be mistaken, but I do not think the change introduced a regression. I'm talking about this: https://bugs.python.org/issue39991#msg364435 I don't want to blame anyone. My intent here is to get more eyes on the changes that I merged in bpo-39991 to make sure that I didn't break any existing cases, and that I covered all cases. > While it is true that this case would not have appeared if there was still a count of the field-separators an IPv6 address with 5 ':' and 17 characters would have failed as well. Right, I pushed a second fix to also handle this case: commit ebf6bb9f5ef032d1646b418ebbb645ea0b217da6. > IMHO - while issue39991 is resolved - I am not -yet- convinced that the "root > cause" has been identified and properly coded If you still see cases which are not handled properly with commit ebf6bb9f5ef032d1646b418ebbb645ea0b217da6, feel free to reopen bpo-39991. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue28009> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
