Nested hashes and arrays could be forced into all three, albeit perhaps at the expense of some awkwardness. After all, it's all structured data. Below is just a quick example and I'm not writing this node to promote writing code to support this data structure. It's certainly not impossible, though, to denote these things.:
my %data = ( 'attributes' => { '_name' => 'mydata', 'height' => 50, 'width' => '80%', }, 'children' => [ { 'attributes' => { '_name' => 'bob', ...} ...}, { 'attributes' => { '_name' => 'tom', ...} ...}, ], 'content' => 'yadda yadda ...', );
Whether that's something you'd want to process later is another issue. Some people like to put a lot of predetermined information about their data into their code. Others like to keep the data as self-describing as possible and keep the code very general to work with that. There are strengths and weaknesses to either approach.
In reply to Re^3: XML::Simple needs to go!
by mr_mischief
in thread XML::Simple needs to go!
by Preceptor
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |