Re^2: XMLin question

[Anonymous Monk]

A2: Well beyond the scope of this reply.... and probably a question asked only in frustration. If you really want an answer, suggest p5p.

How is it a question for p5p? I think it is not

[ww]

Because those active on p5p are among the possible sources of an answer to an extremely esoteric question; an answer that probably would otherwise require the OP have the experience, knowledge and patience to profit by digging thru perlguts and who-knows-what-else.

On the other hand, if you, Anonymonk, can answer it here, I'll be delighted to upvote a brief and correct exposition that's accessible to those of less than Perl Porter stature (like /me).

[Anonymous Monk]

Because those active on p5p are among the possible sources of an answer to an extremely esoteric question; an answer that probably would otherwise require the OP have the experience, knowledge and patience to profit by digging thru perlguts and who-knows-what-else.

p5p does not develop or maintain XML::Simple, asking them about XML::Simple is offtopic and annoying

On the other hand, if you, Anonymonk, can answer it here, I'll be delighted to upvote a brief and correct exposition that's accessible to those of less than Perl Porter stature (like /me).

Wait, what? What question?

[ww]

OK; your first para makes a valid point. So ask Grant McLean <[e-mail]>, the author of XML::Simple, after carefully reading http://search.cpan.org/~grantm/XML-Simple-2.20/lib/XML/Simple.pm -- but note the lastest copywrite notice is dated 2004.

[7stud]

Because those active on p5p are among the possible sources of an answer to an extremely esoteric question

Esoteric question? The question is typical for people who have only a vague notion of what XML is, and therefore they don't know the basic rules of XML, and they are trying to parse broken XML.