On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:19:11 AM UTC+5:30, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 08/04/2015 08:44 PM, wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 21:32, Michael Torrie wrote: > >> In many of my projects I put basic config variables in a file like > >> config.py and import that in each module that needs it. The config > >> module doubles as a global namespace for sharing between modules as well. > > > > What about JSONP? That is, a file consisting exactly of "config_data = > > [JSON object]" That would get you some of the benefits of having your > > config file exist as a python module, but still allow it to be examined > > by other tools, written out, etc. > > But I don't need it to be examined by other tools. So the added > complication of yet another layer isn't worth it or needed. Python's > syntax is simple enough that a person with a text editor can certainly > do it. Again, context is everything. My programs are written for > mostly my own use. If I was writing a system that was like, say, > Apache, I would certainly do a DSL with a robust error checking and > reporting system that could clearly help people with syntax errors, etc.
I think the main point is Cameron's > So on the whole I am against python code as the config file format. Really, > who needs a Turing complete configuration file? stated more strongly: I sure dont want to use something Turing complete from something that is inherently more trivial. And if the cost is of matching the trivial format to the trivial-izing reader (say json) it seems like a small price to pay. In the past Ive always recommended yaml even though the cost is higher -- a separate install [yeah Ive had clients tell me that yaml's out because of that] [Does yaml have comments?] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
