On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org>wrote:
> Eli Bendersky writes: > > > I'm strongly opposed to reverting [the change to ElementTree] > > because it cleaned up messy code duplication and actually make the > > code size smaller. While I agree that the API of incremental parsing > > should be given another look, IncrementalParser can also be seen as > > an implementation detail of iterparse(). > > Except that its API is familiar and cleaner. Does any current > application depend on *not* doing whatever it is that the new API does > that IncrementalParser *does* do? If not, why not keep the API of > IncrementalParser and shim the new code in under that? > I'm having a difficulty parsing the above. Could you please re-phrase your suggestion? > > > Thus, it's probably OK to revert the documentation part of the > > commit to not mention IncrementalParser at all, > > FWIW, as somebody who can recall using ET exactly one, > IncrementalParser is what I used. > > Just to be on the safe side, I want to make sure that you indeed mean IncrementalParser, which was committed 4 months ago into the Mercurial default branch (3.4) and has only seen an alpha release? Eli
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
