D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > That works too. It's just that you had users writing Python code but > assumed that a three line subclass was beyond them. Not requiring them > to write any Python code is a better option than the first one (global > variables) that you proposed. That's all I am trying to say. >
I understand. >> program behaves or perhaps a building component. In that case any of >> the other modules can be updated instead of "A". Actually "A" will >> not be part of the packaged program. > > Or "A" becomes the script that parses the config file and runs the > other code. > Yes. To be more precise, later I will create "A_Interface" to provide the user with an interface for creating the contents of "A". "A_Interface" will then parse "A", calling "B" as required to create the artifact. I had wanted to jump into "A_Interface" using something like urwid or PyQt but it makes sense to work with "A" directly for now. Thanks for taking the time to understand. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list