Kira wrote on 11/22/19 10:15 PM:
So now I am moved to (match) solution.
Last I looked, `match` isn't great for XML, regardless of what representation the XML is in.
You might want to make a DSL that does exactly what you want. Don't expect the off-the-shelf tools to be great -- all the neat ones I can think of were written by people who moved on to other things over a decade ago.
But if you're using SXML, and want to try some aging DSLs, two very useful DSLs to use in combination are Oleg Kiselyov's SXPath, and Jim Bender's `sxml-match`, and you could look at those for ideas.
One of my unreleased (sorry) XML DSLs was a variation on `sxml-match`, which supported things like matching unordered sets of sub-elements.
Automatic conversion to better Racket types (e.g., string, number, date), based on schema or DSL annotations, would've been a nice convenience. Racket struct type definitions derived from an XML schema, in combination with a validating parser, would also be nice. An interesting language design problem was for XML transformation DSLs, but there's less need of XML-to-XML transformation nowadays than was in the original vision.
If you want better XML tools, it's probably up to you. And being empowered to make a DSL that works better for your needs than anything that exists is half the reason to use Racket or another Lisp. I'm not doing any further work with Racket, and am just about to unsubscribe.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/33b56af7-306e-b0ab-09bf-d687858c6faf%40neilvandyke.org.
