Instead of using a raw Hash Oga now uses the XML::Attribute class for storing
information about element attributes.
Attributes are stored as an Array of XML::Attribute instances. This allows the
attributes to be more easily modified. If they were stored as a Hash you'd not
only have to update the attributes themselves but also the Hash that contains
them.
While using an Array has a slight runtime cost in most cases the amount of
attributes is small enough that this doesn't really pose a problem. If webscale
performance is desired at some point in the future Oga could most likely cache
the lookup of an attribute. This however is something for the future.
This method can be used to retrieve the text of the given node only. In other
words, unlike Element#text it does not contain the text of any child nodes.
This method uses a loop to traverse upwards the DOM tree in order to find the
root document/element. While this might have an impact on performance I don't
expect Oga itself to call this method very often. The benefit is that Node
instances don't require users to manually pass the top level document as an
argument.
The combination of iterating over an array and removing values from it results
in not all elements being removed. For example:
numbers = [10, 20, 30]
numbers.each do |num|
numbers.delete(num)
end
numbers # => [20]
As a result of this the NodeSet#remove method uses two iterations:
1. One iteration to retrieve all NodeSet instances to remove nodes from.
2. One iteration to actually remove the nodes.
For the second iteration we iterate over the node sets and then over the nodes.
This ensures that we always remove all nodes instead of leaving some behind.
The documentation still leaves a lot to be desired and so does the API. There
also appears to be a problem where NodeSet#remove doesn't properly remove all
nodes from a set. Outside of that we're making slow progress towards a proper
DOM API.
The previous commit didn't fully change the operator precedence according to
the XPath 1.0 specification. Also thanks to @whitequark for clearing up a few
things about Racc's operator precedence system.
For this I've enabled both the old expectation and stubbing/mocking syntax. The
old syntax is much more compact and to me reads nicer. For example, consider
the following:
lex('<foo></foo>').should == [...]
To me this reads much nicer than this:
expect(lex('<foo></foo>')).to eq([...])
Yorick Peterse