On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Paul Prescod wrote: > There is a language called "XPath" for navigating XML trees. It makes > your life a lot easier. XPath is to XML trees as SQL is to relational > databases. Imagine working with relational databases by looping over > records with no query language! I think that some portion of XPath > should go into Python 2. I agree -- XPath would be cool to work with. > 4Thought has a large, sophisticated implementation of the entire XPath > language. They use Bison (not PyBison!) and FLEX for parsing > performance. The output of Bison is covered by the GPL, and flex requires a runtime library. We want a rich Python, but there's no reason for a billionaire <wink> > 1. use the relatively large 4XPath as is This seems to have a significant cost for the Python distribution > 2. use a tiny subset of XPath (analogous SQL with only simple SELECT) > that can be implemented in a couple of hundred lines of Python code > (this code is mostly done already, in a module called TinyXPath) +0 on that. > 3. try to scale 4XPath back by moving its parser to SRE, and making > some of its features "options" that can be added separately (not clear > how easy this is) If you think someone will do this, this is great. If not, there isn't much point in discussing it, is there? <0.9 wink> -- Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il> There is no GOD but Python, and HTTP is its prophet. http://advogato.org/person/moshez
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4