Re^2: XML::XPath Question

That's not what the docs say, and that's not what the error message says. (It mentions "Node", not "NodeSet".)

The error message is actually spot on. The OP is trying to call the "exists" method of a node, but nodes don't have an "exists" method. The correct usage is

$tree->exists('path', $node)
[download]

Comment on Re^2: XML::XPath Question Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: XML::XPath Question by Corion (Patriarch) on Nov 10, 2010 at 20:30 UTC
I was looking at <a href="http://search.cpan.org/~msergeant/XML-XPath-1.13/XPath.pm#findnodes%28$path,_$context%29">`->findnodes`, and there it says that. But I remember hours of staring at various parts of the documentation, trying to piece together a whole, so there might be other parts that say something else.	[reply]
Re^4: XML::XPath Question by TendulkarIsGod (Acolyte) on Nov 10, 2010 at 20:33 UTC
I don't get it.. a tree is still basically a node, and vice versa... what sets them apart?	[reply]
Re^5: XML::XPath Question by Corion (Patriarch) on Nov 10, 2010 at 20:40 UTC
No. A tree is an organization of nodes. And to search that tree, you have to employ the "XPath searcher" that lives in XML::XPath. You can't intermix methods from the searcher and the tree.	[reply]
Re^5: XML::XPath Question by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 10, 2010 at 21:38 UTC
No. Trees and XML::XPath objects are not nodes, and node objects are not XML::XPath objects. Trees have a node for root, and nodes belong to a tree. There are no is-a relationship between the two, just has-a relationships.	[reply]
Re^3: XML::XPath Question by TendulkarIsGod (Acolyte) on Nov 10, 2010 at 20:39 UTC
I'm sorry, but I don't get it, but a node is a tree, and vice-versa.. what is the distinction?	[reply]