On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:10:41PM +0200, Peter Funk wrote:
Greg Stein :
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 09:12:29AM +0200, Peter Funk wrote:
Eric S. Raymond:
Earlier today, I committed a patch to ConfigParser that adds three new methods to the class. Here is the documentation:
[...] Applying the well known dictionary API to config info can help to to avoid reinventing a new API to deal with configuration info.
What I would love to see, is a class 'ConfigDict' derived from 'UserDict.UserDict', which contains the section-names as keys and section-objects as values, where section-objects are also dictionaries containing the option-names as keys.
Then go ahead and code it. I guarantee that you'll have your wish if you code it. Otherwise, I'll lay very low odds on all the new module suggestions in your email.
Okay: I just had a look into the implementation of ConfigParser and stumbled over the '%(foo)' macro expansion features. If I go ahead and implement these within (below) my ConfigDict.__getitem__ method, this will lead to the problem, that cnf['some_section']['foo'] = 'feeble' cnf['some_section']['bar'] = 'baz' cnf['some_section']['some_option'] = '%(foo)/paf/%(bar)' print cnf['some_section']['some_option'] might surprise users with the dictionary model in their head. They might expect this to print '%(foo)/paf/%(bar)' instead of 'feeble/paf/baz'.
It is a configuration dictionary. Users can simply deal with it :-)
I'm not sure it is a big problem to worry about.