Thanks Cameron. Dave,
March 26, 2019 12:39 AM, "Cameron Simpson" <c...@cskk.id.au> wrote: > On 25Mar2019 23:24, Dave <dbola...@offilive.com> wrote: > >> On 3/25/19 10:58 PM, DL Neil wrote: >>> On 26/03/19 1:10 PM, Dave wrote: >> >> I use Python3 3, and expected learning how to use configparser >>>would be >> no big deal. Well! >> Seems there is configparser, >>>stdconfigparser, and safeconfigparser, and >> multiple ways to set >>>>> the section and entries to the section. A little confusing. I >>>want >>>>> to future-proof may >> code, so what should I be using? >>> (with apologies for not answering the question directly) >>> >>> After striking this problem, I was encouraged to take a look at >>JSON, and >>> thence YAML. Once >>> there, as they say, didn't look back! >>> - multi-dimensional possibilities, cf .ini >>> - similarity/correspondence with Python data structures >>> - convenient PSL >>> - easily adopted by (power-)users, cf Python code > > [...] >>> >> >> Wish I could do that. Customer wants .ini. I would need to sell them >on an >> alternative. The issue >> is human readable - .ini is easier for >people to understand. > > And I agree with the customer, absent more info. Unless you need deeply > nested stuff, .ini is much > easier for humans to read. Not everything is a match for it (unless you start > playing games with > "[clause.subclause.subsubclause]" stuff, which I'd argue is a smell > indicating a format change > might be good). > > But for stuff which does fit nicely into .ini, it is FAR FAR easier on the > reader. Like JSON, YAML > etc are far far easier than XML for the reader. > > Lots of stuff, particularly simple configs, go well in .ini. > > All that opinion aside: just use the configparser.ConfigParser class. It is > what _used_ to be > "SafeConfigParser" in Python 2. > > Here endith the lesson. > > Cheers, > Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au> -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
