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?).

--- old-Oh, Ducks!/tests.lisp 2013-07-07 01:41:17.000000000 +0000

+++ new-Oh, Ducks!/tests.lisp 2013-07-07 01:41:17.000000000 +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))))