>> ahha. so i am replacing one whole subexpr with somthing, and the >> original subexpr is not traversed inside. >> if i comment the stop_on.add(), it attempts to traverse the result >> subexpr, not the original one. >> i want the original to be traversed. Something like doing onExit >> instead of current onEntry. >> if its too hard, i can probably traverse it twice, once just marking , >> 2nd time replaceing things? i'll try >> > if youre replacing a subtree, why would you want to then traverse that > part of the subtree which was replaced ? because as i said, the needed work is onExit of the nodes, i.e. "all room/building is traversed, now what u want to make out of it?" thus i can traverse only once. > can you see why how i have > it working now is reasonably straightforward ? perhaps a second call > to ACP.traverse() should be called for those elements which were > replaced. i did change my code to traverse all twice, once doing nothing, and once replaceing; it works. speed there is not an issue. Still, if u can make the onEntry/onExit/both switchable, that would be usable. Maybe not immediately, but i'm sure once day you'll need it. Right now, it is onEntry, and the actual code/choice is not done clearly, it is spread between traverse() and _convert_element() and similar.
Has anything changed on plain ClauseVisitor? coz' i have (more important) other code elsewhere, which also breaks at same r3727 - it's today topic of digging. > also r3754 fixes the issue that aliased selects, while > being traversed, were not being copied properly. i still need to > tweak the rules for aliases (alised tables, for example, remain > immutable). > i dont really understand why u need the ACP being so different to plain visitor; i mean cant they share some skeleton part of traversing, while putting all the choices (visit* vs convert; onentry/onexit; stop/dont) in their own parts. After all, visitor pattern is twofold, a) Guide + b) Visitor; the Guide doing traversing, the Visitor noting things; choice where to go might be in visitor and/or in guide. some times (one extreme) the visitor is just one dumb functor; other cases (other extreme end) the visitor is very sofisticated and even does guiding/traversing. Here it looks more like second case, u have most of both sides put in the Visitor, and only small part (specific visit_* / copy_internals) left to the actual nodes. And to me, the skeleton is still same between ACP and ClauseVisitor. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
