From: ser@... (Sean Russell) Date: 2004-03-18T23:54:36+09:00 Subject: Re: REXML pull parser usable? gabriele renzi wrote in message news:... > Probably the big "This API is experimental, and subject to change." > did not help :) True... but even when REXML was in its infancy, and *everything* was experimental and subject to change, I got more bug reports on the Document API than I do on SAX and Pull now. > But i believe that this api is little used even in non-ruby worlds. You may be right. Like procedural programming, it may not be the best, but for some reason, it seems to be the easiest to understand. > BTW, Am I wrong thinking that there should be a next() method in > PullParser instances ? I could alias next() to pull()... I want to be careful about adding cruft to the API that doesn't add functionality. A single alias, by itself, wouldn't bloat the package much, but a bunch of tiny features adds up. How much do you want it? What does everybody else think about it? Get a few people to email me requesting it, or make a convincing argument, and I'll add it. --- SER