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, KS -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
