in reply to Re^9: Thanks to Ikegami, Chromatic & Corion
in thread Thanks to Ikegami, Chromatic & Corion

They are pretty much for the plugins only

Yes, escape could very well be for plugins only. I was quite clear about what problem I was trying to fix.

and the only use I've found for them so far is outputting complex litteral strings which contain aXML/Perl...

Or just plain XML. Without these fixes, I wouldn't be able to use aXML for two of the three XML formats I deal with, and it would be very fragile for those with which I could use aXML.

Re^8: Thanks to Ikegami, Chromatic & Corion could be seen as a continuation of this post.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Thanks to Ikegami, Chromatic & Corion
by Logicus (Initiate) on Nov 02, 2011 at 21:09 UTC

    So the big problem with aXML is the non-aXML compliant code you want to run through it?

    That's like trying to say that Perl is broken because it doesn't natively run COBOL.

    The (inc) command can load your file fine... then you just wrap it with a plugin of your design to get the output. In a similar way to how you would layer middleware components.

    How about you show me a fragment of the file, and tell me what output would be required from processing it, please make the task as extra-specially difficult as you possibly can, fiendishly difficult even, the harder the better. I'm pretty confident I can still show you an elegant solution.

[reply]

      So the big problem with aXML is the non-aXML compliant code you want to run through it?

      Stop putting words in my mouth. I've said this at least three times already, the problem was that there was no way to create compliant code. (I think there still isn't, but aXML doesn't even compile, so I didn't verify.)

[reply]

        I have hundreds of aXML documents which render correctly!

        See the other comment I left for the reason it's not compiling for you (run plackup starting from the right folder)

[reply]

In Section Meditations