On Apr 1, 8:56 pm, CTO wrote:
> > I just mean that there should be a
> > clear and easy way to do it, that it should be considered a basic
> > service, and that if the best way to satisfy all the goals is to
> > integrate it directly into the language, that shouldn't be shied away
> > from.
>
> Ho
On Apr 1, 3:29 am, Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > "Discoverable", as in built-in tools that let you have the following
> > conversation: "Program, tell me all the things I can configure about
> > you" - "Okay, here they all are". No digging through the source
> > required.
>
> But this doesn't have any
On Mar 31, 10:44 pm, "Rhodri James"
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:06:50 +0100, jfager wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:31 pm, "Rhodri James"
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:59:12 +0100, jfager wrote:
> >> > It's the configur
On Mar 31, 9:42 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <36148830-22c0-4f19-ab23-
>
> d04d8755a...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, jfager wrote:
> > I've written a short post on including support for configuration down
> > at the language level ...
>
&g
On Mar 31, 2:16 pm, Lorenzo Gatti wrote:
> On 31 Mar, 09:19, jfager wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 2:54 am, David Stanek wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM, jfager wrote:
> > > >http://jasonfager.com/?p=440.
>
> > > > The basic idea i
On Mar 31, 6:02 am, David Stanek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:19 AM, jfager wrote:
>
> > "Simply having a configuration file" - okay. What format? What if
> > the end user wants to keep their configuration info in LDAP? Did the
> > library I'm inc
On Mar 31, 5:57 am, Kay Schluehr wrote:
> On 30 Mrz., 15:40, jfager wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've written a short post on including support for configuration down
> > at the language level, including a small preliminary half-functional
> > example of what this m
On Mar 31, 3:40 am, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:06:50 -0700, jfager wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:31 pm, "Rhodri James" wrote:
> ...
> >> This would be a interesting idea, but ultimately no more than a veneer
> >> over the current set of
On Mar 31, 3:30 am, CTO wrote:
> On the one hand, I can 110% see why you want to reduce boilerplate
> code and provide a discoverable, common mechanism for automating the
> two and three-quarters parsers that a lot of applications have to
> write to handle a config file, CLI, and/or registry value
On Mar 31, 3:08 am, rustom wrote:
> I am not sure I understand your solution.
Any questions, please ask.
> I certainly think that the
> problem is big, very much bigger than is appreciated.
> Think of the hoopla in the RoR world about convention-over-
> configuration.
Certainly, it's a big pro
On Mar 31, 2:54 am, David Stanek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM, jfager wrote:
> > I've written a short post on including support for configuration down
> > at the language level, including a small preliminary half-functional
> > example of what this
On Mar 30, 9:31 pm, "Rhodri James"
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:59:12 +0100, jfager wrote:
> > It's the configuration problem. Right now you would use something
> > like ConfigParser or optparse to populate some configuration object,
> > which you would
On Mar 30, 11:17 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:40:00 -0700, jfager wrote:
> > I've written a short post on including support for configuration down at
> > the language level, including a small preliminary half-functional
> > example of what
I've written a short post on including support for configuration down
at the language level, including a small preliminary half-functional
example of what this might look like in Python, available at
http://jasonfager.com/?p=440.
The basic idea is that a language could offer syntactic support for
14 matches
Mail list logo
