Eli Bendersky added the comment: > I agree that [0] should be treated as a visible error as it's easy to get > wrong. It's certainly too late to change this to 0-based indexing and I > think it's ok to keep it 1-based for XPath compatibility (or at least > similarity) as that's what people will expect it to mimic. I came up with a > similar fix for lxml, BTW. > > Regarding the behaviour of negative indices, it's clearly broken and > unexpected and "-1" is definitely not a valid XML tag name (as which it's > currently interpreted). That's a change for Py3.4+ only though. Either > disable negative indices completely and raise an exception at parse time or > read "-X" as "last()-X". I would also be ok with the latter as it feels > natural to support this in a Python context. But that's a new feature then, > not a bug fix. And the fact that "last()-X" already exists tends to speak > against it. It's more of an "if the intention is clear, why raise an > exception" kind of thing. >
Stefan, IIUC, my recent commit (mirrored to the issue) is in accord with this comment. Please correct me if I'm wrong. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12323> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
