SRFI 233: INI files Arthur A. Gleckler (10 Aug 2022 19:20 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Vladimir Nikishkin (11 Aug 2022 04:36 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Vladimir Nikishkin (11 Aug 2022 04:46 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Arthur A. Gleckler (11 Aug 2022 06:08 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (11 Aug 2022 14:18 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Lassi Kortela (11 Aug 2022 07:53 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Vladimir Nikishkin (11 Aug 2022 08:40 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Lassi Kortela (11 Aug 2022 08:50 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files John Cowan (11 Aug 2022 14:01 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files Hugo Hörnquist (12 Aug 2022 09:50 UTC)
Re: SRFI 233: INI files John Cowan (12 Aug 2022 23:33 UTC)

Re: SRFI 233: INI files Hugo Hörnquist 12 Aug 2022 09:49 UTC

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:46:40PM +0800, Vladimir Nikishkin wrote:
> class configparser.ConfigParser(defaults=None, dict_type=dict,
> allow_no_value=False, delimiters=('=', ':'), comment_prefixes=('#',
> ';'), inline_comment_prefixes=None, strict=True,
> empty_lines_in_values=True, default_section=configparser.DEFAULTSECT,
> interpolation=BasicInterpolation(), converters={})

I see configurable delimiters and comment prefixes as a must. Without
them many INI-files would be useless. Also, if we delegate the
interface for configuring that to the implementations, then this SRFI
becomes almost worthless, since you still don't have a consensus for
how that is done.

--
hugo