[Python-Dev] Request for Opinions

Fredrik Lundh Fredrik Lundh" <effbot@telia.com
Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:39:08 +0200

paul wrote:
> We have three options:
>  1. use the relatively large 4XPath as is
>  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)
>  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)
> What do you think?

if there's a migration path from (2) to (1) (interface-wise,
at least), I'd vote for (2).  or (2)+(3), if that makes sense.

(I know I've promised to look at (1)+(3), but I haven't quite
gotten there yet...)