Neil Hodgson wrote: > > ... > > The registry is just not important enough to have this much attention or > work. I remain unreconstructed. My logic is as follows: * The registry is important enough to be in the standard library ... unlike, let's say, functions to operate the Remote Access Service. * The registry is important enough that the interface to it is documented (partially) * Therefore, the registry is important enough to have a decent API with complete documentation. You know the old adage: "anything worth doing..." If the registry is just supposed to expose one or two functions for distutils then it could expose one or two functions for distutils, be called _distreg and be undocumented and formally unsupported. > The Microsoft.Win32.Registry* API appears to be a hacky legacy API to me. > Its there for compatibility during the transition to the > System.Configuration API. Read the blurb for ConfigManager to understand the > features of System.Configuration. Its all based on XML files. What a > surprise. Nobody on Windows is going to migrate to XML configuration files this year or next year. The change-over is going to be too difficult. Predicting Microsoft configuration ideology in 2002 is highly risky. If we need to do the registry today then we can do the registry right today. -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4