On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 12:16:58PM +0200, Bertrand Fritsch wrote: > > Daniel Veillard wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:31:38PM +0200, Bertrand Fritsch wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>I wonder why the xmlAddChild function doesn't unlink the node before > >>adding it to the tree, whereas xmlAddNextSibling and xmlAddSibling > >>functions do it? What is the rationale behind this? From a caller POV, > >>the difference is compelling since the work to do to call these function > >>is not the same in one case than in the other. > >> > > > > No rationale, just diverging evolution. If you really care about > >this I take patches, but that won't dispense you from doing that > >xmlUnlinkNode() to avoid compatibility issues. > > > > > > > Thank you Daniel for your quick answer. For now I'll adapt my code to > unlink the node before calling the xmlAddChild function.
I really think that should be the way apps are implemented. It's bad to rely on an undocumented side effect when you have the proper calls to do the same things. I think the Unkink was added to cope with people who forgot to do the right thing, Daniel -- Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
