Why is there no functional xml?

[Peter Otten]

Rustom Mody wrote:

> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 4:51:34 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Otten wrote:
>> Personally I'd probably avoid the extra layer and write a function that
>> directly maps dataclasses or database records to xml using the
>> conventional elementtree API.
> 
> Would appreciate your thoughts/comments Peter!
> 
> I find that you can get 'E' from lxml.objectify as well as lxml.builder
> builder seems better in that its at least sparsely documented
> objectify seems to have almost nothing beyond the original David Mertz'
> docs
> 
> builder.E seems to do what objectify.E does modulo namespaces
> 
> builder.E and objectify.E produce types that are different and look
> backwards (at least to me — Elementbase is less base than _Element)
> 
> You seem to have some reservation against objectify, preferring the
> default Element — I'd like to know what

While I don't have any actual experience with it, my gut feeling is that it 
simplifies something that is superfluous to begin with.

> Insofar as builder seems to produce the same type as Element unlike
> objectify which seems to be producing a grandchild type, do you have the
> same reservations against builder.E?

If I understand you correctly you are talking about implementation details.
Unfortunately I cannot comment on these -- I really just remembered 
objectify because of the catchy name...