On 11.08.2010, at 10:31, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > :funnily enough for me coalesce is far more obscure than preserve. > Might be the french in you :)
> Now my point was not for this specific message but I would like to get some > guidelines to specify consistent API. > And I'm always thorn apart when writing code if I should use s or not. > I think we all want to figure out how it is done best in general. Discussing about a single selector in one piece of code would hardly justify a longer thread :) To me this is really important. I read the Becks but can't even remember which of those. Because it's none of these things you read and you can remember afterwards. Well, at least in my cast this doesn't work and far too lazy to read it over and over. Norbert > > On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> >> On 11.08.2010, at 00:56, jaayer wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ---- On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:18:19 -0700 Norbert Hartl wrote ---- >>> >>>> >>>> But as I wrote in my description of the problem I would call it >>>> >>>> coalesceCDATASections: aBoolean >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> enableCoalescing >>>> disableCoalescing >>> >>> The downside of enable/disable pairs is the need for three message (two to >>> modify, one to test and lazily initialize) rather than two. >>> >>>> The functionality that is described here is better known as coalescing. >>>> And it describes better what is going. If a parser is coalescing two >>>> things will happen. CDATA sections will be read in as text nodes and then >>>> subsequent text nodes are coalesing into a single text node. >>>> >>>> my 2 cents, >>>> >>>> Norbert >>> >>> I think "preserve" is better, if only because "coalesceCData" just implies >>> a joining together of CDATA sections and says nothing about their status in >>> the DOM tree as XMLString or XMLCData nodes. Although I am not wed to it. >>> >> I think it is hard to find a word that describes completely what ist going >> on. And I think that common sense/common usage is also kind of an argument. >> I didn't start to think of myself what would be the best describing word >> (quite hard as non-native speaker). If you search the net then you might see >> (as I did) that it is quite common that this effect is described as >> coalescing. That was my only reason to speak up because I think its >> recognition is better this way. >> If you know about coalescing than the state in DOM tree is pretty obvious. >> The nodes can coalesce only if they are of the same kind. While a cdata _is_ >> a text node all cdata nodes are converted to simple text nodes and then all >> of the text nodes coalesce into one. The state in the DOM is always that >> there is a single text node after coalescing. >> >> Norbert >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
