On Aug 19, 2008, at 6:50 PM, G. Ken Holman wrote:
What result to you expect for your test string "/path/to/resource"?
<a href="../../../">[root]</a> / <a href="../../">path</a> / <a
href="../">to</a> / resource
What result to you expect for "/to/resource"?
<a href="../../">[root]</a> / <a href="../">to</a> / resource
What result to you expect for "/resource"?
<a href="../">[root]</a> / resource
Got it.
I also got lost in your code with the definition of the variable
"recursiveResult" and pulling it apart again ... I couldn't see why
the variable would be necessary and not just generate each step as
required.
Below is what I think is a complete result, without the need for
such a variable. I've tried to document it to explain the approach.
I hope this helps.
. . . . . . . . . . . Ken
<snip>
Ken, thanks so much for taking the time to help out. Sure enough, your
solution works as advertised. :-)
One thing I'd like to simplify/optimize is the number of recursive
descents. It seems that your code recurses all the way down to the
base case and back up for each path element to correctly construct the
parent href. This is certainly not an O(n^3) algorithm, but it seems
like a triangular number (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TriangularNumber.html
). For very long paths, this creates more work than necessary. Even
so, I'll take what works over what doesn't. :-)
- Quinn
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--