Rainer Schuetze napisał:
> This looks nice and compact Using opDispatch to specify the tag (I guess
> that is what you are using to create a tag "book" by calling xml.book())
> feels like misusing opDispatch, though. Does it add readability in
> contrast to passing the tag as a string to some function?
>
> How do you write a tag named "tight"? Or a tag calculated at runtime?
xml.tag("tight", attributes..., { make content });
That's the base implementation. opDispatch is just syntax sugar over it.
> Something more conventional would be
>
> xml.tag("book", attr("year", book.year), { ...
>
> but I'm not sure that pairing the attribute name and value adds
> readability or mere noise.
Putting name and value without a wrapper tuple is just sugar. Having some sort
of structure representing an attribute is inevitable as we come at namespaces.
In the end it should accept any range of (namespace-)name-value tuples as
attributes.
--
Tomek
