Can't seem to start on this
Kene.Meniru at illom.org
Thu Jan 3 18:36:52 CET 2013
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> That works too. It's just that you had users writing Python code but
> assumed that a three line subclass was beyond them. Not requiring them
> to write any Python code is a better option than the first one (global
> variables) that you proposed. That's all I am trying to say.
>> program behaves or perhaps a building component. In that case any of
>> the other modules can be updated instead of "A". Actually "A" will
>> not be part of the packaged program.
> Or "A" becomes the script that parses the config file and runs the
> other code.
Yes. To be more precise, later I will create "A_Interface" to provide the
user with an interface for creating the contents of "A". "A_Interface" will
then parse "A", calling "B" as required to create the artifact. I had wanted
to jump into "A_Interface" using something like urwid or PyQt but it makes
sense to work with "A" directly for now.
Thanks for taking the time to understand.
More information about the Python-list