> Should SafeConfigParser.set() be escaping automatically?
It seems like that would be a nice feature. However, may I offer up
that if you are setting an option and then later on getting that value
back in the same program, you probably should have used some other
storage mechanism in the first place. That is, you shouldn't store
values needed during the runtime of your program in a ConfigParser
instance.
As far as I can tell, these are the valid use cases for ConfigParser:
1. Use ConfigParser to read values from an config file
- This implies .read() followed by .get()s
2. Use ConfigParser to create and write a config file
- This implies .set()s followed by .write()
3. Use ConfigParser to read, modify and write a config file.
- This implies .read() followed by .get()s followed by .set()s
followed by .write()
None of the above use cases involve calling .get() after a .set().
Perhaps I am missing a use case though.
While I think you have technically pointed out a potential bug, I'm
not sure why it matters. Such a bug only comes about for (IMHO) flawed
use cases.
Matt
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
