Node.child should be named Node.first_child ?

[mpage38]

I think Node.child should be named Node.first_child, as the access to the last child is named Node.last_child.
BTW, I am surprised that there is no children property.

[rushter]

We have .iter(). Does it do what you would expect?

[LeDilam]

I agree about Node.child to be renamed in Node.first_child because I haven't seen any Node.childs or Node.children so I was expecting Node.child to do that. But it doesn't, it's only the first child and sometime the first child even doesn't work.
I was not expecting Node.iter() to act like what would be a Node.children. I was expecting Node.iter() to "Iterate over nodes on the current level" (what is written in the documentation) meaning I was expecting it to iterate over the rest of nodes that are on the same level than the node I am on, not children of the node.
Because of that I have tried to do Node.child.iter() to iterate over children and it was my last best guess until I found this report.

I think that :

• the current behavior of Node.iter() should become a Node.children() (and say in the documentation that it "iterate over children of the current node", not saying Iterate "on the current level").
• Node.child should be renamed Node.first_child and say that it "Return the first child node" instead of "Return the child node"
• and bugs with using the two dedicated function instead of .iter() needs to be fixed : getting the first child and last child seems buggy when using those function when those child are in a separated line in the html than the start or end of the current node (see issue 114).