[XML-SIG] Ugh! Why are DOM access methods spelled with a leading '_'?

[Jim Fulton]

"Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote:
> 
> Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
>  > The big issue there is the legacy code.
> 
> Jim Fulton writes:
>  > Is there much?
> 
>   *I* don't have much and would be happy to convert.  But I'm more
> interested in hearing the answer to this question from the people
> doing XML work for a living -- I suspect their answer may be *very*
> different!
> 
>  > Is it late in the game?  From the evidence on the XML-SIG
>  > pages and the discussion here, it appears to me that there
>  > is not a defined Python DOM mapping. Some people think that
>  > it provides direct attribute, others seem to thing it provides
>  > access based on both.
> 
>   Considering that all this has been hashed out several times, I'd say
> it is. 

I'll be willing to give on this, however, I assert that
a decision isn't a decision unless it's published.

It doesn't help when the people who made the decision
can't seem to remember what it was. Supposedly, the
decision was that DOM attributes are accessed as ordinary
Python attributes, as in::

  foo.nodeName

yet several people seemed to think that attributes are obtained
via accessor functions:

  foo._get_nodeName()

You argued that this was appropriate based on IDL
conformance. Why make this argument if the decision
was to use attribute access? Or was it? What was the
decision anyway? :)

> The lack of a DOM mapping document is more because everyone is
> ultra-busy than because the matter hasn't been considered.

If the decision is important, someone should find the time
to publish it. Presumably people found time to write code.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@digicool.com   Python Powered!        
Technical Director   (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org  
Digital Creations    http://www.digicool.com   http://www.zope.org    

Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email
address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my
permission.  Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will
result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for
repeats.