Oh no, it works exactly as i expect. I was just wondering because I
was changing the implementation and did not want to change the
behavior. Well no changes other than to call the specialized version
of .elements(...)
Here is the change I have added so far:
def elements(self, *args, **kargs):
"""
find all component that match the supplied attribute
dictionary,
or None if nothing could be found
All components of the components are searched.
"""
# make a copy of the components
matches = []
first_only = False
if kargs.has_key("first_only"):
first_only = kargs["first_only"]
del kargs["first_only"]
try:
# check if the component has an attribute with the same
# value as provided
check = True
tag = getattr(self,'tag').replace("/","")
if args and tag not in args:
check = False
for (key, value) in kargs.items():
if self[key] != value:
check = False
# if found, return the component
if check:
matches.append(self)
if first_only:
return matches
except:
pass
# loop the copy
for c in self.components:
if isinstance(c, XmlComponent):
kargs['first_only'] = first_only
child_matches = c.elements( *args, **kargs )
if first_only and len(child_matches) != 0:
return child_matches
matches.extend( child_matches )
return matches
How might I go about getting this considered for web2py?
mdipierro wrote:
> It makes a copy of the list of components (shallowcopy), not a
> deepcopy. that means that it returns a new list but the objects in
> there should still be references to the original helpers and you can
> modify them. Does this cause unexpected behaviour? If so can you post
> an example? Perhaps we can improve it.
>
> On May 19, 1:38 pm, Ian Reinhart Geiser <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Greetings, is there a technical reason why DIV.elements makes a copy
> > of the elements that it returns? The reason I am asking is because I
> > am making a minor change to it to allow it to call children's
> > elements() method. This way I can overload the elements() method in
> > those children. The reason I am doing this is I have some SCRIPT()
> > objects that are being created in the children but only after all of
> > their children have been added. Then I am using
> > DIV.elements('script') to extract all of these individual scripts and
> > place them as a preceding sibling SCRIPT object to the top level DIV.
> > At any rate, I just want to make sure that there is a good reason that
> > a copy is being performed so I can preserve that when I finish the
> > refactoring.
> >
> > As a side note, from what I can tell is DIV.siblings is the same
> > story, but it doesn't make a copy of the elements it returns.
