in reply to Mixed XML content with XML::LibXML

What about this?
use strict; use XML::LibXML; parse(); sub parse { my $filename = shift; my $parser = XML::LibXML->new(); my $doc = $parser->parse_string(<<'EOT'); <root> <node>text1 <child1>data</child1> <child2>data2</child2> </node> <node>text2 <child1>blah</child1> <child2>data3</child2> </node> </root> EOT foreach my $node ($doc->findnodes('/root/node/text()[1]')) { print "string value :".$node->string_value."\n"; print "to literal :".$node->to_literal."\n"; print "node name :".$node->nodeName()."\n"; print "____________________\n"; } }

Output:

string value :text1 to literal :text1 node name :#text ____________________ string value :text2 to literal :text2 node name :#text ____________________

ikegami was close, but he missed adding the proximity position of the first member of the node-set (the [1]).

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Mixed XML content with XML::LibXML
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Sep 29, 2008 at 19:29 UTC

    ikegami was close, but he missed adding the proximity position of the first member of the node-set (the [1]).

    I most definitely did not want to drop some of the text.

      For lack of a DTD, you could not know whether there was to be additional text-data, but from the example given it seemed that there was only one such item and the OP confirmed later that this was indeed the case.

      CountZero

      A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

        So why use [1] if there's only going to be one?