Author ncoghlan
Recipients eli.bendersky, flox, jcea, ncoghlan, python-dev, scoder
Date 2013-08-24.06:26:18
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1377325579.13.0.569670181638.issue17741@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Using tulip-inspired method names (when tulip hasn't landed) to duplicate existing data input functionality (feed() and close()) seems a rather dubious design decision to me.

Given how popular lxml.etree is as an alternative to the standard library's etree implementation, we shouldn't dismiss Stefan's design concerns lightly.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-08-24 06:26:19ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, jcea, scoder, eli.bendersky, flox, python-dev
2013-08-24 06:26:19ncoghlansetmessageid: <1377325579.13.0.569670181638.issue17741@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-08-24 06:26:19ncoghlanlinkissue17741 messages
2013-08-24 06:26:18ncoghlancreate