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

[Michael F. <fuz...@vo...>]

On 19 Oct 2009, at 01:10, Cameron Stone <cam...@cs...>  
wrote:

> 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.
>


Nice to see people respectfully agreeing with each other. It doesn't  
happen enough on open source mailing lists.

Michael Foord

--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com




> 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.
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart  
> your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and  
> stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> Configobj-develop mailing list
> Con...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/configobj-develop