Re: [xml] Why doesn't xmlAddChild unlink the node first?

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 12:16:58PM +0200, Bertrand Fritsch wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:31:38PM +0200, Bertrand Fritsch wrote:
> >  
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I wonder why the xmlAddChild function doesn't unlink the node before 
> > > adding it to the tree, whereas xmlAddNextSibling and xmlAddSibling 
> > > functions do it? What is the rationale behind this? From a caller POV, 
> > > the difference is compelling since the work to do to call these function 
> > > is not the same in one case than in the other.
> > >    
> >
> >  No rationale, just diverging evolution. If you really care about
> > this I take patches, but that won't dispense you from doing that
> > xmlUnlinkNode() to avoid compatibility issues.
> >
> >
> >  
> Thank you Daniel for your quick answer. For now I'll adapt my code to 
> unlink the node before calling the xmlAddChild function.

  I really think that should be the way apps are implemented. It's bad
to rely on an undocumented side effect when you have the proper calls
to do the same things.
  I think the Unkink was added to cope with people who forgot to do the
right thing,

Daniel

-- 
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard      | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine  http://rpmfind.net/