On 12/13/05, Walter Dörwald <walter at livinglogic.de> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I don't think that SAX is unpythonic, but it's pretty low-level and > > mostly of use to people writing higher-level XML parsers (my parsexml > > module uses it). > > Having to define classes that conform to a certain API and registering > instances of those classes as callbacks with the parser doesn't look > that pythonic to me. An iterator API seems much more pythonic. Perhaps. Although the SAX API lets you leave a callback undefined if you don't have a need to handle those events; that's a bit trickier to do with an iterator. Also the different callbacks have different signatures. But since /F solved this for ElementTree I have to mostly agree with you. :-) > Then again, pythonic is whatever you say that it is. ;) Not at all. I will argue but I will also take arguments from others. Seriously. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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