On Sep 5, 7:37 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm hoping there is a principle that will simplify the transliteration > from lxml to ElementTree, namely that all methods in common between > lxml and ElementTree work exactly the same way. This is a theorem, > not a given. It principle appears to be true. I've carefully transliterated all the xpath code, at each stage verifying that the newly-computed objects are exactly what xpath returns. The only code to be transliterated is enable_filters. The code there uses different xpath calls than typical. I don't expect major problems. I contend that the new code is actually at least as easy to understand than the xpath code. I think it would have been just as easy to write the new code as it would have been to write the old code. In other words, for *this* application at least, lxml appears to add exactly nothing of significance to ElementTree. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
