On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Bruce Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This raises an interesting question, though. Should Selector > containers accept <patternset>s as elements and internally convert > the <include>s and <exclude>s into equivalent selectors?
What about <patternset> is a selector container?
Well, of course it is, but I was using "selector container" to refer to <and>, <or>, and <not>. Sorry for being unclear. So you might have:
<patternset id="readonly">
<permissionselect type="r"/>
</patternset><patternset id="javaclasses">
<filenameselect name="**/*.java"/>
</patternset><patternset id="readonly-or-javaclasses">
<or>
<patternset refid="readonly"/>
<patternset refid="javaclasses"/>
</or>
</patternset>Doing things this way, I'm not sure whether references make sense on the individual <and>, <or>, and <not> tags, but it requires that those three accept patternsets as children. It also means that the <or> has to interpret the <include>s and <exclude>s of the patternset, since the patternset has no built in methods to validate a file itself (not sure why not).
Or are you suggesting '<patternset type="and"|"or"|"not"><selector/></patternset>', with "and" being the default? Probably not, since it loses the clarity of Rob's proposal.
> Another question is whether I should still include the "inverted" > attribute, given the existence of <not>?
Answer this on a case by case basis. In general I'd say no, but some selectors may become frequently used in both their normal and the inverted form.
That seems sensible. Thanks.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
