On 11/16/15, 10:54 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/16/15, 9:54 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> 2) detect read and write on XML/XMLList and convert read to child(). >>>> What >>>> about write()? >>> >>> Good question. I think we should map xml.foo = <foo id=“1"/> to >>> xml.replace(“foo”,new XML(“<foo id=\”1\”/>”)); >> >> What does the above actually do if there is only one foo child and if >> there are more than one foo.child? > >1. xml.foo = someXML replaces all foos with someXML (in the location of >the first foo) >2. xml.foo = someXMLList removes all foos and adds in the ones from the >list (in the location of the first foo) > >> Do you know if you can use += to append? > >How do you like that? I’ve never thought of trying +=! I just tried and >it works like a charm! It adds it in after the last foo or at the end if >foo does not exist. Hmm. I wonder what other operators work. Like “-=“. And does xmlList1 + xmlList2 concatenate them? > >I’m not sure what the best mapping for this will be. We probably should >get a reference to the last foo and map it to >xml.insertChildAfter(lastFoo,newFoo) if there are any foos. Otherwise it >should map to appendChild(). OK. Thanks for doing the testing. The compiler cannot know whether there will be a foo at compile-time, so for all of these cases, I think we’ll have to call a new setChild() method and your code will have to “do the right things”. Replacing “=“ expressions with method calls is quite painful in the compiler and the output can look very messy. What do you think about implementing setChild as a setter instead of a method? -Alex
