implicit-element is a better name than root
Sat Dec 5 07:18:05 UTC 2009 pix@kepibu.org
* implicit-element is a better name than root
Also add a bit of support for sibling combinators when dealing with the
implicit element, and note a problem that crops up when dealing with
selections on a non-root element (should a simple-selector select the
element, or is there an implicit descendant combinator?).
diff -rN -u old-Oh, Ducks!/selectors.lisp new-Oh, Ducks!/selectors.lisp
--- old-Oh, Ducks!/selectors.lisp 2015-11-22 01:42:51.000000000 +0000
+++ new-Oh, Ducks!/selectors.lisp 2015-11-22 01:42:51.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
(in-package #:oh-ducks)
-(defvar *effective-root* nil
- "The element to be considered as the root element during unification. Is the implicit element to be matched by combinators without a leading qualifier. E.g., \"> a\" will match <a> tags directly under *effective-root*.")
+(defvar *implicit-element* nil
+ "The element to be considered as an implicit element to be matched by combinators without a leading qualifier. E.g., \"> a\" will match <a> tags directly under *implicit-element*, and \"+ a\" will match <a> tags directly following *implicit-element*.")
#.(set-dispatch-macro-character #\# #\T 'unify::|sharp-T-reader|)
@@ -52,23 +52,23 @@
<http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-unification-devel/attachments/20091201/d5021e15/attachment.obj> ~
to ensure proper functioning of the \"Oh, Ducks!\" library.")
-(defclass %root-selector (simple-selector) ())
-(defparameter %root-selector (make-instance '%root-selector))
+(defclass %implicit-element-selector (selector) ())
+(defparameter %implicit-element-selector (make-instance '%implicit-element-selector))
-(defmethod print-object ((selector %root-selector) stream)
+(defmethod print-object ((selector %implicit-element-selector) stream)
(print-unreadable-object (selector stream :type t)))
(defun parse-selector (selector)
(match-case (selector)
;; combinators
(#T(regexp$ "[ ]*[~][ ]*" ())
- (list (make-instance 'sibling-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %root-selector))))
+ (list (make-instance 'sibling-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %implicit-element-selector))))
(#T(regexp$ "[ ]*[+][ ]*" ())
- (list (make-instance 'adjacent-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %root-selector))))
+ (list (make-instance 'adjacent-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %implicit-element-selector))))
(#T(regexp$ "[ ]*[>][ ]*" ())
- (list (make-instance 'child-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %root-selector))))
+ (list (make-instance 'child-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %implicit-element-selector))))
(#T(regexp$ "[ ]+" ())
- (list (make-instance 'descendant-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %root-selector))))
+ (list (make-instance 'descendant-combinator :matcher (or (parse-selector &rest) %implicit-element-selector))))
;; simple selectors
;; cyclic (An+B, n+B)
(#T(regexp$ ":nth-child\\([ ]*([+-]?)([0-9]+)?n[ ]*([+-])[ ]*([0-9]+)?[ ]*\\)" (?asign ?a ?bsign ?b))
@@ -103,6 +103,11 @@
;#t(lex$ ("#" (?id :identifier)))
;#t(lex$ (?type :identifier))
+(defun find-matching-elements-in-list (selector element-list)
+ (reduce #'nconc
+ (mapcar (curry #'find-matching-elements selector)
+ element-list)))
+
(defgeneric find-matching-elements (selector element)
(:method (selector (element t))
(flet ((find-in-list (elements)
@@ -147,8 +152,8 @@
(declare (ignore element selector))
t)
-(defmethod element-matches-p (element (selector %root-selector))
- (eq element *effective-root*))
+(defmethod element-matches-p (element (selector %implicit-element-selector))
+ (eq element *implicit-element*))
(defmethod element-matches-p (element (selector list))
(every (curry #'element-matches-p element) selector))
@@ -174,3 +179,16 @@
(and ourpos
(> ourpos 0)
(find-if (rcurry #'element-matches-p (matcher selector)) siblings :end ourpos))))
+
+;; Hello excessively long name
+(defun terminating-implicit-sibling-combinator-p (selector)
+ (typecase selector
+ ((or sibling-combinator adjacent-combinator)
+ (typecase (matcher selector)
+ (%implicit-element-selector t)
+ (list (terminating-implicit-sibling-combinator-p (car (last (matcher selector)))))))
+ (combinator (terminating-implicit-sibling-combinator-p (matcher selector)))
+ (selector nil)
+ (null nil)
+ (list (terminating-implicit-sibling-combinator-p (car (last selector))))
+ (t nil)))
diff -rN -u old-Oh, Ducks!/tests.lisp new-Oh, Ducks!/tests.lisp
--- old-Oh, Ducks!/tests.lisp 2015-11-22 01:42:51.000000000 +0000
+++ new-Oh, Ducks!/tests.lisp 2015-11-22 01:42:51.000000000 +0000
@@ -79,16 +79,21 @@
(first q))
i))
-;; Note, however, that searches are strictly recursive. So a sibling
-;; combinator won't match.
-;; FIXME: should it?
+;; siblings will also match, thanks to a bit of ugly code
(match (#T(html (:model dom)
("q" . ?q))
- "<div><i>ham</i> foo <q>bar <i>baz</i></q> quuz <i>spam</i></div>")
+ "<div><i>ham</i> foo <q>bar <i>baz</i></q> quuz <i>spam</i><q></q><i>not match</i></div>")
(match (#t(html ("+ i" . ?i))
(first q))
i))
+(match (#T(html (:model dom)
+ ("q" . ?q))
+ "<div> foo <q>outer q <i>baz <q>inner q</q></i></q> quuz</div>")
+ (match (#t(html ("q" . ?i))
+ (first q))
+ i))
+
#+LATER?
(match (#t(html ("div::content" . #t(regexp+ "^f(o+)" (?o))))
diff -rN -u old-Oh, Ducks!/unify.lisp new-Oh, Ducks!/unify.lisp
--- old-Oh, Ducks!/unify.lisp 2015-11-22 01:42:51.000000000 +0000
+++ new-Oh, Ducks!/unify.lisp 2015-11-22 01:42:51.000000000 +0000
@@ -18,8 +18,29 @@
(css-selector-template
(unify template document env))
(t
- (let* ((*effective-root* document)
- (val (find-matching-elements css-specifier document)))
+ (let* ((*implicit-element* document)
+ ;; FIXME: this is UGLY!
+ (val (cond
+ ((terminating-implicit-sibling-combinator-p css-specifier)
+ ;; search remaining siblings
+ (find-matching-elements-in-list
+ css-specifier
+ (rest
+ (member document
+ (when-let* ((parent (element-parent document)))
+ (element-children parent))
+ :test #'eq))))
+ ;; search subelements
+;;; FIXME: this assumes if someone passes us a node they want to find
+;;; subelements of that node. In the case of nested matches, that's probably
+;;; true, but it hardly seems fair to assume it. Really we want some sort of
+;;; descendant combinator to be sure, but the general one (#\Space) doesn't
+;;; exactly show up all that well. Somebody might assume " b" was the same as
+;;; "b" and get confused.
+ ((element-parent document)
+ (find-matching-elements-in-list css-specifier (element-children document)))
+ ;; root element includes itself
+ (t (find-matching-elements css-specifier document)))))
(cond
((null val)
(error 'unification-failure