[XML-SIG] foo.bar vs. foo.get_bar()

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com wrote:
> > But now that I examine the heart of the matter, I guess it's not as bad as I'd 
> > thought.  We have not been planning to implement readonly nodes in 4DOM, and 
> > we'd leave string-overflow issues to the Python interpreter, so actually we 
> > wouldn't need to use __[g/s]etattr__ for Node, and this really brightens 
> > things.  Node, Element and Text would be hook-free, and another common class, 
> > Attr, would only need the hook if we insisted on arcane W3C rules with regard 
> > to specified attributes which don't make much sense without DTD support anyway.
> 
> Well, scratch that after all.  I forgot all about DOM_HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERROR. 
>  That puts Node squarely back into the "needs __[g/s]etattr__" camp again.

Ack. Too bad... looks like you were onto something there. However, could
you still avoid the hook for most of the attributes, or is that exception
possibly raised by *any* attribute access? (eek!)

Obviously, I'm a DOM illiterate... just asking questions from the peanut
gallery here :-)

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/