Pierre Quentel <pierre.quen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If that's your intention, then instead of coming up with something
>> totally new, unpythonic and ugly, why not take the normal Python
>> route and implement a subset of the ElementTree API?
>>
>> Stefan
> Because the tree implementation in ElementTree or other tree modules
> in Python require a lot of typing and parenthesis
>
> To produce the HTML code
>
><DIV>hello <B>world</B></DIV>
>
> these modules require writing something like
>
> div = Tag('DIV')
> div.appendChild(TextNode('hello '))
> b = Tag('B')
> b.appendChild(TextNode('world'))
> div.appendChild(b)
> doc.appendChild(div)
Or you can do something like this:
>>> from lxml.html.builder import *
>>> snippet = DIV("Hello ", B("world"))
>>> etree.tostring(snippet)
'<div>Hello <b>world</b></div>'
>
> With the tree syntax proposed in Brython it would just be
>
> doc <= DIV('hello '+B('world'))
>
> If "pythonic" means concise and readable, which one is more pythonic ?
>
The one that doesn't do unexpected things with operators.
--
Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
