Re: [Xmlstar-devel] enhanced_select branch

[André K. <ak...@la...>]

>>>
>>> Is it worth adding all these options? Your example shell commands  
>>> look
>>> like XSL with shorter tags (<tagname></tagname> becomes --tagname or
>>> -t).
>>
>> Well that's what I wanted to discuss about!
>> I think some switches are definitely worth adding: var, key, choose/
>> when/otherwise, import, include.
>> Some are less worth it and as you say could be added with extra
>> switches or extended --elem and --attr (say --xelem and --xattr)  
>> which
>> would write xslt elements.
>>
>> Some switches could be shortcuts to longer xslt constructs (like
>> currently --template, --match): function and/or function call  
>> switches.
>>
>> In the end the command line will look like an XSLT stylesheet but  
>> less
>> verbose and hopefully human-readable.
>> But I also see xmlstarlet as a command-line xslt stylesheet designer.
>>
>
> Hmm, well I see it more as a little tool for when you have just a  
> small
> XML manipulation task that isn't worth the bother of writing a
> stylesheet: little one-liners. It would be interesting to hear others
> people's opinion on this.

I felt a bit let down when I was trying to go over the one-liner since  
things are rarely as simple as they look like.
This is why I added options to support other xsl elements.
First of I didn't much like the idea of writing:
xml sel -t -i 'condition' -o 'yes' -b -i 'not(condition) -o 'no' -b -b
for an if/then/else so I added support for choose/when/otherwise:
xml sel -t --choose --when 'condition' -o 'yes' -b --otherwise -o 'no'  
-b -b -b
Sure it's longer to write but it also opens new horizons.
Then things leading to another I added support to var, key.

Anyway, adding other switches won't prevent you from using xmlstarlet  
for one-liners if that's how you use it. I also use it for one-liners.
I just don't want to be stopped at the first hurdle.

I'd be interested in other people's opinion as well.

> If we do go in the "less verbose stylesheet direction", I think there
> should be some kind of syntax defined instead of using options for
> everything. I don't find the dashes very pretty, and single letter
> options aren't all that human-readable.

Well sure that's a matter of taste. I don't mind too much the dashes,  
but I rarely write long xml commands directly in the terminal, I  
directly integrate them in longer shell scripts.

As for the the syntax I don't quite understand.
If that's a full language, then XQuery is already there.
If that's some shortcuts or syntactic sugar to avoid typing dashes  
then OK.
For instance I'd prefer to write -a name=value to set an attribute  
rather than the current -a name -o value -b.
But the second syntax remains useful for more complex logic.

There's a learning curve as for any command-line or any tool, and if I  
don't want to have to remember what a short option means, I use the  
long one.
More typing but less head scratching three months later.

Regards,
André