Re: cvs

[<ma...@ev...>]

>>>>> "M" == Mike808  <mi...@ne...> writes:

    M> Maybe some discussion of what we're trying to do with our
    M> changes can help keep things more 'merge-able'.

Agreed... more below.

    M> On an unrelated front, we've got double-underbar methods and
    M> underbar methods and I'm not sure of Geert's intent via naming
    M> conventions. Perhaps he can help with a short note and we can
    M> document it. That way, we can remain consistent.

I really like Bron's idea about moving these `underbar' functions to a
seperate auxilliary sub-package.  That gives a clean interface to the
XML::XSLT library and makes it clear(er) that those functions are not
part of our public API.

Shall we merge BRON1 into the developement branch?

    M> If we're not too worried, why the compelling need to switch
    M> from hashes to arrays?

Lack of self-control ;->  ?

I was implementing the newer API that I had talked about and that
other people seemed to want.  I started playing around with the
arraryref implementation and it stuck.

You are right that the hashref is more "mergable", though.

    M> Well, I can focus on _add_node and _evaluate_element for
    M> starters.  BEGIN's a pig, but it's a one-time deal, so I'm not
    M> that worried.

I'll get rid of URI::Heuristic and LWP::Simple in my code -- things
that slow it down substantially.  I'll also go back to the hashref
implementation (which is really just a search and replace away) and
work on making it more "mergable" with your work on the maint branch.

Finally, I thought that I had committed your work on the -maint
branch, but it appears that I haven't.  Could you re-commit it?

Mark.  (Also sending to -devel, but it looks like neither you nor Bron
are on the list.)