Comments on: Remedial Scala: XML http://blog.darevay.com/2009/01/remedial-scala-xml/ You know, software and some other stuff like maybe guitar or something Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:31:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dave http://blog.darevay.com/2009/01/remedial-scala-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-35 dave Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:58:19 +0000 http://blog.darevay.com/?p=175#comment-35 @German: Interesting. Funny that I'm so wrapped up in learning the fancy syntax I hadn't even thought to check for a label or name property :) In fact, it's even simpler. Since e is already in scope, I can just match on the label string directly. No need for the tuple in this case. @German: Interesting. Funny that I’m so wrapped up in learning the fancy syntax I hadn’t even thought to check for a label or name property :)

In fact, it’s even simpler. Since e is already in scope, I can just match on the label string directly. No need for the tuple in this case.

]]> By: German http://blog.darevay.com/2009/01/remedial-scala-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-34 German Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:41:35 +0000 http://blog.darevay.com/?p=175#comment-34 Re: the ugly match... I think it would be better to match it like this: (e.label, e) match { case ("object", x) => /* use node x */ case ("not", x) => /* use node x */ } That is, matching by the element's label, but still providing the node itself. Pattern matching is done on a "pair" tuple. Re: the ugly match…
I think it would be better to match it like this:
(e.label, e) match {
case (“object”, x) => /* use node x */
case (“not”, x) => /* use node x */
}
That is, matching by the element’s label, but still providing the node itself. Pattern matching is done on a “pair” tuple.

]]>