Ross Bamford wrote:
>
>
> From my point of view, I'm behind with docs as it is and have plenty to do
> on the code, so it's probably not the right time to do that. Once we get
> the next round of releases out the way, and things are calmer, it would
> probably be a great idea :).
>
> [1]:
> > I fully agree that removing Node::Set in favor or an Array would make
> > the API more powerful.
> > Currently if I want to sort some nodes I have to put them in some other
> > data structure. Ie:
> >
> >array = []
> >node.find( 'Child1/Child2' ).each { |e| array << e }
> >array
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:28:25 -, zdennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Van Holstyn wrote:
>> Here is my suggestions for the API. Let me know what you think.
>>
>
> I think Mark's document makes alot of sense. I am using Marks changes
> currently (patched 0.3.6) and
> I love the method 'fi
So far, very few of my proposed changes have made it as far as code. I was waiting for a little feedback before I went ahead and did anything. I will most likely start implementing some of the changed within the next week or so, and will submit anything I do to the libxml-ruby project. Hopefully an
Mark Van Holstyn wrote:
> Here is my suggestions for the API. Let me know what you think.
>
I think Mark's document makes alot of sense. I am using Marks changes currently
(patched 0.3.6) and
I love the method 'first' that he has added to XML::Node.
I fully agree that removing Node::Set in favo
