Re: [xml] more on recursive xmlCopyNode - patch proposal

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 07:43:08AM +0100, Boris Erdmann wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> please ignore my posting about bugs in xmlNewReconciliedNs -
> i didnt realize that xmlSearchNsByHref already does prefix
> scope checking.

  Okay, I'm a bit confused at that point because some of your
messages got blocked and I have a hard time following the sequence

> Similar to the strategy used in xmlStaticCopyNode i modified
> xmlCopyPropNode. Un fortunately this employs xmlNewReconciliedNs
> in some cases. Is this too expensive?

  Well xmlNewReconciliedNs() should be okay, the previous behaviour
was broken and that's the most expensive.
  The best would be to start adding regression tests, possibly based on
the python bindings to easilly build scripts checking the various cases
without need to (re)design C code again.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2822c2822
> <
> ---
>  >

  Hum, Could you send contextual diff instead, relying just on line numbers
is error prone, thanks,

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/