currently, when multiple nodes shall be prepended to one, the call
A.add_previous(B, C, D, E)
but also:
siblings = (B, C, D, E)
A.add_previous(*siblings)
results in node siblings ordered like:
E D C B A
whereas this is an alternative:
B C D E A
as far as i remember i chose the current order because it's behaving symmetrically to add_next. but i'm not sure whether that is something that'd be expected.
if there even is an behaviour that can be generally or somehow scoped be asserted as intuitive. with regards to consistency to add_next, both variants can make sense.
currently, when multiple nodes shall be prepended to one, the call
but also:
results in node siblings ordered like:
whereas this is an alternative:
as far as i remember i chose the current order because it's behaving symmetrically to
add_next
. but i'm not sure whether that is something that'd be expected.if there even is an behaviour that can be generally or somehow scoped be asserted as intuitive. with regards to consistency to
add_next
, both variants can make sense.the question applies similarly to
prepend_child
.