On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:10:41PM +0200, Peter Funk wrote: > Greg Stein : > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 09:12:29AM +0200, Peter Funk wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Eric S. Raymond: > > > > Earlier today, I committed a patch to ConfigParser that adds three new > > > > methods to the class. Here is the documentation: > > > [...] > > > Applying the well known dictionary API to config info can help to > > > to avoid reinventing a new API to deal with configuration info. > > > > > > What I would love to see, is a class 'ConfigDict' derived from > > > 'UserDict.UserDict', which contains the section-names as keys and > > > section-objects as values, where section-objects are also dictionaries > > > containing the option-names as keys. > > > > Then go ahead and code it. I guarantee that you'll have your wish if you > > code it. Otherwise, I'll lay very low odds on all the new module suggestions > > in your email. > > Okay: I just had a look into the implementation of ConfigParser and > stumbled over the '%(foo)' macro expansion features. If I go ahead and > implement these within (below) my ConfigDict.__getitem__ method, this > will lead to the problem, that > cnf['some_section']['foo'] = 'feeble' > cnf['some_section']['bar'] = 'baz' > cnf['some_section']['some_option'] = '%(foo)/paf/%(bar)' > print cnf['some_section']['some_option'] > might surprise users with the dictionary model in their head. > They might expect this to print '%(foo)/paf/%(bar)' instead of > 'feeble/paf/baz'. > > Any suggestions? It is a configuration dictionary. Users can simply deal with it :-) I'm not sure it is a big problem to worry about. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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