Why have .text_lexbor (publicly available) if it's equivalent to .text() with default parameters ?

[LeDilam]

.text_lexbor() seems to do really exactly the same thing than .text() with default parameters. So why keeping it ?

If it's more performant than .text(), why not check when .text() is launched with default parameters and internally use .text_lexbor() when it's the case ? (To make .text() as performant than .text_lexbor() and turn .text_lexbor() into a private function.)

According to documentation, there is no difference. It just precise that .text_lexbor() "uses builtin method from lexbor". Having duplicates (without explanation of utility) introduce a bit of confusion.

Little code showing equivalence :

tree = LexborHTMLParser(offline_wiki_page)

text = tree.body.text()
text_lexbor = tree.body.text_lexbor()

if (text == text_lexbor):
   print ("text and text_lexbor are equivalent.")
else:
   print ("text and text_lexbor are different.")

[rushter]

It does not support a custom separator, so we can't reuse it everywhere.
Sometimes, you want to have a custom separator due to how text is styled with CSS.

[LeDilam]

It does not support a custom separator, so we can't reuse it everywhere. Sometimes, you want to have a custom separator due to how text is styled with CSS.

I am not asking for what is the point of .text() (which have multiple options like custom separator), I'm asking for what is the point of .text_lexbor() (which doesn't have options according to the documentation)

My question is about the point of having .text_lexbor() publicly available.

[rushter]

My question is about the point of having .text_lexbor() publicly available.

Just to give people more options. At the end of the day it's a wrapper and it exposes some of the internals.