Re: br tag in CGI.pm V2.91

Update: this is actually redundant This Node has a better explanation...

If it were only that simple :) If you'd looked above these lines, you would have seen that they were within the 'checkbox_group' and 'radio_group' subs (although I think your line number is off in the second case). You need to do a little less casual grepping :)

After a little play, I think I've narrowed it down to (and sent a note to Lincoln explaining my thoughts) this sub:

sub _make_tag_func {
    my ($self,$tagname) = @_;
    my $func = qq(
    sub $tagname {
            shift if \$_[0] &&
                    (ref(\$_[0]) &&
                     (substr(ref(\$_[0]),0,3) eq 'CGI' ||
                    UNIVERSAL::isa(\$_[0],'CGI')));
        my(\$attr) = '';
        if (ref(\$_[0]) && ref(\$_[0]) eq 'HASH') {
        my(\@attr) = make_attributes(shift()||undef,1);
        \$attr = " \@attr" if \@attr;
        }
    );
    if ($tagname=~/start_(\w+)/i) {
    $func .= qq! return "<\L$1\E\$attr>";} !;
    } elsif ($tagname=~/end_(\w+)/i) {
    $func .= qq! return "<\L/$1\E>"; } !;
    } else {
    $func .= qq#
        return \$XHTML ? "\L<$tagname\E\$attr />" : "\L<$tagname\E\$at
+tr>" unless \@_;
        my(\$tag,\$untag) = ("\L<$tagname\E\$attr>","\L</$tagname>\E")
+;
        my \@result = map { "\$tag\$_\$untag" }
                              (ref(\$_[0]) eq 'ARRAY') ? \@{\$_[0]} : 
+"\@_";
        return "\@result";
            }#;
    }
return $func;
}
[download]

My guess is that \@_ is always true at the moment, so it never tries to create the XHTML non-container element (it's a little easier to see if you dump the output of the compiled br sub).

cLive ;-)

Comment on Re: br tag in CGI.pm V2.91 Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: br tag in CGI.pm V2.91 by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 10, 2003 at 08:21 UTC
You need to do a little less casual grepping :) Your right. In future I won't pass along any information until I've solved your problem. Examine what is said, not who speaks. 1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible 3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke.	[reply]
Re: br tag in CGI.pm V2.91 by cLive ;-) (Prior) on Apr 10, 2003 at 17:55 UTC
No. Just stop for a second and check what you're writing. A couple of days ago you did the same. I see from your home node that you pay attention to your "rank". Perhaps one day you'll calm down a bit on that front and won't rush out hastily written replies. I appreciate most of your posts - just not the ones that are obvious vote grabbers with little thought out content. (sorry if this sounds like a flame - it's not meant to :) cLive ;-)	[reply]
Re: Re: br tag in CGI.pm V2.91 by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 10, 2003 at 20:34 UTC
I could have posted Yet Another "Don't Do That" post, but I didn't. Instead, as I had never encountered the problem you described, I tried it and got different results. I then re-read the pod and 'discovered' the -no_xhtml option, which I had never used, and didn't recall having read about, so I mentioned this in my first post incase the default had changed in later versions either accidently or by design. I could not know whether you were familiar with it or not, so I thought it worth a mention. I then took the time to download and install the same version as you were using and tried again. This time I replicated your results. I loaded CGI.pm into my editor and attempted to track through the references to the $XHTML flag and see where these coincided with references to <br> tags. Whilst my attempts at this were fairly cursory, I thought that they were of sufficient interest to warrent passing the information along to you. CGI.pm is one of the most complex modules out there. It defies any attempts at quick analysis, and I feel in no way chagrined that I didn't 'solve' the problem, nor do I feel embarrassed that my attempts to pass along real information were apparently unappreciated. I am sorry that you percieve these attempts to assist you in your problem as simply a "hastily written - vote grabbing" exercise, but I guess any attempts I make to try and deny that characterisation will fall on deaf ears. I do resent the perception as in many cases I spend hours and even days on trying to solve interesting problems, but there is nothing I can say or do to change those perceptions. And no, it didn't sound like a flame. It's refreshing to receive feedback, even negative feedback, to my posts. I'll take the perceptions of my reasons for posting to heart and in future refrain from passing along information just because I think it might be useful. As for the reference to my home node, I think that many people have a section that tracks their progress at this place on their home node, is mine so different? Examine what is said, not who speaks. 1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible 3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke.	[reply]