On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > 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 think that the only difference between 2.3 and 2.4 wrt exec namespaces is that you're allowed to use dict subclasses in 2.4. Not that you should.. -bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
