Re: [Configobj-develop] new to configobj - questions

[Cameron S. <cam...@cs...>]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:00:23 pm David Hostetler wrote:
> I have to respectfully disagree with your description of a 'nicer'
> behavior.
>
> What you're proposing would break the clean semantic behavior of cfg
> parsing and validating.
>
> If a user deletes a section name, but leaves the key/value pairs that
> previously belonged to it, then those key/value pairs *ARE* part of the
> preceeding section!   What you're asking is for validate to complain about
> a scenario that is only a problem in your contorted use case.  It is
> simultaneously a perfectly valid scenario in other cases. 

I must respectfully agree with you here.

I also like the idea of optionally flagging extra key/value pairs that aren't 
in the spec, as a way of detecting typos and other errors. I'm using a 
ConfigObj to parse a file that also gets modified manually, so it happens more 
often than I'd like.

Nice work,

Cameron.