On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 02:24:32PM -0500, Karl Dahlke wrote: > Yeah, this is something I got confused about too, > until Chris set me straight. > Duh - I wrote it - and then I got confused about it. > I can be dumb as a box of rocks sometimes.
I remembered something about this after I replied but couldn't remember the details. At some stage I really need to familiarise myself with the html code. > The linked list or array or vector or whatever holds pointers > to struct htmlTag, not the struct itself. > So structs can go ahead and point to each other as parents and children, > because the structs don't move. > The growing vector simply reallocates the list of pointers to those > structures. Stupid question, and appologies if this's already been asked, but why are we storing a list of pointers? > > I already do this, don't I? > t->controller is the form that owns the input tag, > and for an option t->controller is the select that owns the option. > Just rename controller parent and you're halfway there. We also need to store a list of children in each tag, i.e. in the code: <body> <div> <p>whatever</p> <p>Some more text</p> </div> <div> <p>Footer text</p> </div> </body> The body would have a list of two pointers to the two div tags, the first div tag would need to hold a list of two pointers to the two p tags under it, whilst the second div tag only has one pointer to the p tag under it. As you say though, each tag only needs a single parent link, which simplifies things. > > So with this in mind > > static list < struct htmlTag *>htmlStack; > > becomes > > static vector < struct htmlTag *>htmlStack; > > Then sure it's all normal after that, and I'd just love to > set cw->tags to htmlStack, but cw->tags > is one of those things that is in C, not C++. > In fact it's in eb.h, thus in every C file, > so we'd have to use void * or some such, or convert the whole project to C++. Or according to [1] set it to: cw->tags = &htmlStack.front(); > But that's the idea, and we can certainly move forward there. No need to do this rewrite at the moment, and I think we need to get the js stuff sorted before we start contemplating any possible benefits (I'm still not entirely convinced honestly) of doing this. > Then there is no trouble adding new tags as we need to, > as js creates new thingees for us. Yeah, as long as we ensure we append the correct child list and set the parent pointer correctly. Cheers, Adam. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6485496/how-to-get-stdvector-pointer-to-the-raw-data
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Edbrowse-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
