Are you suggesting that we should make all of the config files .py files? That's not unreasonable, actually. Then people can do dynamic things wherever they want (and we rid ourselves of that "no space in position 1" problem). It's *slightly* more verbose doing the config in python, but most people are just manipulating pre-existing values anyhow.
Kevin On 1/3/06, Elvelind Grandin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I meant was that as I understood you the new config file would be > python but the old cfg's would be ini > On 1/3/06, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 1/3/06, Elvelind Grandin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Sounds like a great idea, but i'm not sure it's that good to use two > > > different config formats (py and ini). > > > > Hmm... there certainly could be an ini file that goes along with your > > project for deployment-independent settnigs. The advantage to a py > > file is that it would also handle the case of any computed settings > > that are required. We *could* have both, but that starts to seem > > overkill. > > > > Kevin > > > > > -- > cheers > elvelind grandin > -- Kevin Dangoor Author of the Zesty News RSS newsreader email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] company: http://www.BlazingThings.com blog: http://www.BlueSkyOnMars.com
