I think this is a vestige of the old fact that there could be two ruby
objects that referred to the same XML node. Since I removed that and
now there is only a one-to-one relationship between the ruby peer and
the XML node, if == is equivalent to equal? and equal? is object
identity, then it makes sense to do as you say. Should eql? take on
the code of the current ==?
Dan
On Jul 7, 2008, at 03:18, Charlie Savage wrote:
This bug report is interesting:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=19772&group_id=494&atid=1971
Basically, the code compares two nodes using the == operator,
assuming that == means equal? (same object) and not eql? (equivalent
object).
Right now libxml-ruby does the opposite by defining eql? (and thus
==) to be the comparison of two different node's raw xml (as a
string). Needless to say, that can be an extremely slow operation
for large documents.
In addition, I can't see how libxml-ruby's interpretation is even
useful - why would you want to compare if two node's raw xml is the
same? For point of comparison, it looks like rexml does not
override eql?
So, I'd like to change the libxml bindings by removing the
overridden == operator, thus making == mean equal?
Objections?
Charlie
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
