Message196064
| 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 06:26:19 | ncoghlan | set | recipients: + ncoghlan, jcea, scoder, eli.bendersky, flox, python-dev |
| 2013-08-24 06:26:19 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1377325579.13.0.569670181638.issue17741@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-08-24 06:26:19 | ncoghlan | link | issue17741 messages |
| 2013-08-24 06:26:18 | ncoghlan | create | |