On Thu, 01 May 2008 09:45:28 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: > On May 1, 12:11 pm, Jon Ribbens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2008-05-01, Ivan Illarionov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > IMO .ini-like config files are from the stone age. The modern >> > approach is to use YAML (http://www.yaml.org). >> >> You mean YAML isn't a joke!? It's so ludicrously overcomplicated, and >> so comprehensively and completely fails to achieve its stated main goal >> of being "readable by humans", that I had assumed it was an April Fool >> along the lines of Intercal or brainf***. > > > YAML, ISTM, took a simple concept that worked for small, straightforward > data, and tried to make into a format that could anything anywhere, with > disastrous results. It's not unlike Perl in this regard. It's quite > ridiculous. > > > My recommendation to the OP would be: > > If you intend to write a GUI that completely sets all the options, use > XML. You can bet there are some users who would prefer text editing > options files, and XML, while not the most readable format available, at > least gives users the option. > > If you don't intend to write a GUI to do that, write a simple text file > parser (if the options are simple), use ConfigParser, or use a Python > file that you exec. > > Store the file in $HOME/.appname/config.ext on Unix, $USERDIR/ > ApplicationData/Appname/config.ext on Windows. I don't recommend using > the Windows registry to store options; use it to modify Windows behavior > (like file associations) but keep your own program's options in your own > file. > > > Carl Banks
If you don't like YAML, use JSON or something similar -- XML is overkill and .INI is too limited. -- Ivan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
