From: Eli C. <el...@co...> - 2015-04-27 23:38:02
|
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Darren Spruell <pha...@gm...> wrote: > Before going down the road further on finding a working string > formatted configspec that works for this case (which from my > perspective has so far been more complex than a Python use case > arguably should be), I wanted to detour first and ask: is it possible > to modify the configspec support to allow simply passing a Python list > as an argument to option()? In my opinion this is possibly the > cleanest and most flexible idiom (and least surprise for users I > suspect). > I have no ideological objection to that, but it's an area of the code which I'm not super-familiar with, so I can't say offhand why it was implemented that way to begin with. It might have something to do with the fact that [ and ] characters are used specifically in sections, and therefore there was a desire to avoid using them in other contexts. That combined with the fact that the current syntax works (though it is probably not what people would intuitively guess the syntax to be) would be an argument against changing it. Though as I said, I'd need to look at the code to see if there's any particular difficulties for the parser to use [ and ] to mean two different things. - Eli |