> RegEx + E4X means insanely fast custom parsing and conversion, plus > insanely fast searches and filters for XML. The need for XPath is about to > be a thing of the past (whenever they get around to releasing 8.5, that is).
I did some benchmarks comparing fp8 XML vs fp8.5 flash.xml.XML vs fp8.5 E4X (recursive traversal of an xml document) where the fp8.5 version turned out to be 20x faster than it's fp8 counterpart while the E4X version was only twice as fast. I also did benchmarks comparing RegExp vs char-by-char parsing on my CSS parser and char-by-char appeared to be faster. Now these may not be common cases, but they show that there is no such thing as an ultimate way to do things. If i need comfort and ease of use i'd go for E4X or RegExp, if i need speed i do it the oldschool way, and if i need to be less language dependent and don't care much about speed i stick with XPath. In fact i'd love to see a solid XPath processor written in AS3. cheers, claus. _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
