Hi Tomas,

>> =A0 =A0(with-xml
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 (<tag1 (@ attr1 val1)
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"text"
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(<tag2 "text")
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"text" ))
> If you go this route, why not something like:
> (with-xml
> =A0 (<tag1 @attr1 val1
> =A0 =A0 =A0"text"
> =A0 =A0 =A0(<tag2 "text")
> =A0 =A0 =A0"text" ) )

Because with (@ attr1 val1 ...), you can retrive the attributes by
just using (assoc '@ sxml).
Is there any advantage of using your syntax @attr1 val1 ...?

> Also, if you don't manage to hook your error handler to define the tag
> functions "on-the-fly", you can always traverse the tree argument of
> 'with-xml' and replace (or define) the tag symbols with your generic
> tag function and then eval the whole tree.

Good idea. Thanks :-)

Best regards,
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to