Kevin Dangoor wrote: > So, if there's another trick that we can use to make it look INI-like, > but still function entirely like a normal Python module, I'm game for > trying that out. Otherwise, given the constraints above, it sounds > like people are interested in changing the extension. ".pyini"? "pyc"? > (for python configuration -- just kidding!).
For this file in particular I don't see any problem with Python syntax, or even a funny Python-like syntax (i.e., exec in a funny namespace -- though I'd be sure to test that in 2.3, since it acts differently on this stuff I think). At least as it isn't advertised as a Python module through the .py extension. Then it's just a matter of aesthetics. Of course, if it is aesthetics then that's a good sign that you can waste an unbounded amount of time. Maybe just do whatever now -- use what you have with a new extension -- and add another file extension later if you come to hate what you've made ;) I feel more strongly that external configuration should be simple (and ConfigParser keeps things pretty simple, even when you might wish it didn't). But I feel even *more* strongly that external and internal configuration should be kept separate, so I kind of like if they use two different syntaxes. -- Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
