[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Changes by Terry J. Reedy : -- assignee: docs@python -> terry.reedy ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscri

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Victor, I reopened this a a doc issue to add the sentence that would have cut short the discussion. Please leave it. -- resolution: fixed -> status: closed -> open ___ Python tracker

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

STINNER Victor added the comment: > It would be good if ConfigParser supported angled brackets in section names > by being greedy when parsing. I agree with Terry, it's the opposite: we must explicitly reject them to be compatible with other applications. Please move the discussion to issue #2

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Discussion continues because my close message was, I now realize, incomplete and therefore unsatisfying. Ditto for the doc. So I complete my close message here and reopen issue to augment the doc. The discussion has so far has glossed over the key question:

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Mark Lawrence added the comment: Why the debate on an issue that was closed over 18 months ago? -- nosy: +BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

SpaceOne added the comment: Sorry about that! I created http://bugs.python.org/issue25723. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-l

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Sebastian Bank added the comment: Terry: I am not so sure about that interpretation. Do we agree that the INI-files are the data/message? ConfigParser refuses to accept dirty INI-Files (with ']' in section names) but will produce this kind of files. I we see the arguments given to ConfigParser

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Sebastian: you have it backwards. A paraphrase of Postel's recommendation (calling it a Law is wrong) is 'accept dirty data, emit clean data'. This is the current behavior. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle. This article also explains

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

R. David Murray added the comment: The enhancement request was rejected. At this point I think it would be better to open a new bug requesting that an error be raised if the supplied section name contains a ']'. The question there is if there are backward compatibility issues. That can be d

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

SpaceOne added the comment: IMHO your rejection is stupid. User input should always be validated. At least a ValueError should be raised if add_section() is called with a string containing ']\x00\n['. As this will always create a broken configuration. Otherwise ConfigParser cannot be used to w

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Sebastian Bank added the comment: If this is the intended behaviuour, I guess ConfigParser should warn the user if he supplies a section name with a ']' (prevent failed roundtrips). See http://bugs.python.org/issue23301 The current behaviour looks like the opposite of Postel's law. -

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: I see. Perhaps it uses a proprietary .ini reader ;-). -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Miloš Komarčević added the comment: Thanks for the exhaustive explanation. I did however come across a proprietary application that stores it's configuration in an INI like file that exhibits this corner case behaviour with section names, hence the suggestion for enhancement. --

[issue20923] ConfigParser should nested [] in section names.

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: This is invalid as a bug report, unless one considers that the presence of '_foo]' on the same line should have raised an exception. As an enhancement request, I think it should be rejected. ConfigParser configuration language is based on msdos/windows .ini fi