[REXML] why not Element#[] ?

[gabriele renzi]

Hi gurus and nubys,

I was just wondering why access to attributes of an element is done
just via #attributes#[].
IMO it would be nice to have Element#[] like:

def [](k)
attributes[k]
end

and ditto for #[]=

Anyway, Sean Russel is my personal XML deity so if this is not allowed
there may be a reason: what is this reason?

 

[Sean Russell]

I was just wondering why access to attributes of an element is done
just via #attributes#[].

Element#[] is already defined, since it is inherited from Parent. #[]
references all child nodes of an element except attributes.

if this is not allowed there may be a reason: what is this reason?

It was, primarily, a design decision: either Element#[] references
nodal children, or Element#[] references attributes. I chose the
children.

--- SER

 

[gabriele renzi]

il 26 Jul 2004 09:06:38 -0700, (e-mail address removed) (Sean Russell)
ha scritto::

I was just wondering why access to attributes of an element is done
just via #attributes#[].

Element#[] is already defined, since it is inherited from Parent. #[]
references all child nodes of an element except attributes.

oops, sorry I just took a look at the quick RDoc api and did not
thought of inheritance

if this is not allowed there may be a reason: what is this reason?

It was, primarily, a design decision: either Element#[] references
nodal children, or Element#[] references attributes. I chose the
children.

well, sure now this makes sense, thanks a lot

 

[Sean Russell]

Element#[] is already defined, since it is inherited from Parent. #[]
references all child nodes of an element except attributes.

oops, sorry I just took a look at the quick RDoc api and did not
thought of inheritance

No problem. The fact that rdoc doesn't include inherited methods in
the class signature bites everyone, sooner or later, including me.


--- SER