Re: [Configobj-develop] Re: ConfigObj Changes

[Fuzzyman <fuz...@vo...>]

Nicola Larosa wrote:
>>> I am going to implement these as section methods. My initial idea was
>>> to implement them using the ConfigParser names and syntax. This means
>>> you would have to specify a subsection, but could specify None to get
>>> values in the section you are calling from.
>>>
>>> In order to avoid this there are three (reasonable) options :
>>>
>>> 1) Implement ``asbool`` *and* ``getbool`` methods - ``getbool``
>>> following ConfigParser signature.
>>> 2) Just implement ``asbool`` and leave ``getbool`` for a ConfigParser
>>> compatibility layer - if it ever happens.
>>> 3) Implement ``getbool`` but make the second argument optional (by
>>> having None as the default). If no second argument is specified, treat
>>> the first argument as a key *not* a section...
>>>
>>> I have a mild preference for 2) but quite like 3). 3) is weird because
>>> it changes the meaning of the first argument *if* you provide a second...
>>>
>>> Opinions please...
>>>       
>
>   
>> Actually I like 3. It keeps compatibility with ConfigParser (benefit of
>> familiarity), and achieves both aims.
>>
>> If you supply one argument it's a key, if you supply two they are
>> ``section, key``.
>>
>> Oh, except it's ``getboolean`` not ``getbool``. :-)
>>     
>
> I think I'll disagree here. I concur that having to specify None for no
> subsection is a bit inconvenient. However, breaking the rule that optional
> parameters should be last in the signature is worse, IMO. I seem to recall
> a couple such cases in the standard library, and they feel out of place and
> inconsistent with the rest.
>
> Moreover, with option 3) you're not really compatible with ConfigParser
> anymore, since you changed the signature, by allowing one to use just one
> param. That may cause surprises in case of mistakes.
>
> Maybe it would be better to have separate methods with just one param, and
> that would be option 1), if I'm not mistaken.
>
>   
I can see your point.

*However* there is a current discussion of ConfigObj going on in
python-dev. Ian Bicking mentions about having *too much* in the API.
Implementing two means of doing similar things seems like overkill.

Do you greatly prefer ``getboolean`` (allowing but requiring you to
specify a sub-section) to ``asboolean`` (not requiring or allowing you
to specify a sub-section) ?

Just implementing ``asboolean`` leaves the way open for ``getboolean``
in a subclass (implementation of either is trivial).

All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml