[Python-Dev] configparser: should optionxform be idempotent?

[Inada Naoki]

>
> That argument could be used for any use of optionxform, though -
> instead of using the default optionxform, use explicitly-lowercased
> values everywhere instead.
>

It can't be usable if the config format case-insensitive.

value = (cfg.get("section", "name") or cfg.get("section", "Name")
        or cfg.get("section", "nAme") or cfg.get("section", "naMe")...)


> I still prefer option (b), allowing general functions for optionxform.
> However, I will say (and I should have said in my first mail) that
> this is a view based purely on theoretical considerations. I've never
> explicitly used optionxform myself, and none of my code would be
> impacted in any way regardless of the outcome of this discussion.
>
> Paul

If we choose (b), I think core developer must check test coverage for
optionxform before documenting non-idempotent optionxform
is allowed explicitly.

I don't have motivation for that because I never used configparser in such way.

The PR looks good to me for the particular case the issue describe.
So I will merge the PR without updating document when we chose (b).

But let's wait a few days for other comments.

Regards,

-- 
Inada Naoki  <songofacandy at gmail.com>