Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format
in [Python]
|
Prev: [ANNC] pynguin-0.1 (python-based turtle graphics application)
Next: Detecting new removable drives in Linux
From: Daniel Fetchinson on 1 Mar 2010 13:40 >> it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to >> write a module that anybody would want to use; > > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We > don't need another configuration language. I can't even say "yet > another" because there's already a "yet another" called yaml. And in case you are new here let me assure you that Paul is saying this with his full intention of being helpful to you. I also would think that working on such a project might be fun and educational for you but completely useless if you have users other than yourself in mind. Again, I'm trying to be helpful here, so you can focus on a project that is both fun/educational for you and also potentially useful for others. This RSON business is not one of them. Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown
From: Patrick Maupin on 1 Mar 2010 13:45 On Mar 1, 12:03 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We > don't need another configuration language. I can't even say "yet > another" because there's already a "yet another" called yaml. The only "in search of" here is that, instead of working on a point solution for my particular problem, I am "in search of" a solution that is a bit more elegant and general, and that might help solve other people's problems too. If you are not one of those that has this sort of problem at this point in time, then feel free to kill- file this thread. Thanks, Pat
From: Paul Rubin on 1 Mar 2010 13:03 Patrick Maupin <pmaupin(a)gmail.com> writes: > it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to > write a module that anybody would want to use; But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We don't need another configuration language. I can't even say "yet another" because there's already a "yet another" called yaml.
From: Patrick Maupin on 1 Mar 2010 14:18 > > Certainly. The PEP format is a useful one. I've used it myself for some numpy > design documents. But can you see why people might get confused about your > intentions when you call it a draft PEP and post it to python-dev? If you stop > calling it a PEP and stop talking about putting it in the standard library, > people will stop being distracted by those issues. As I mentioned, I didn't see the fine print in PEP 1 about PEP 2 being the document for library modules. As I mentioned, mea culpa. It is painfully obvious that some don't like the way I have gone about describing the project. They obviously view me announcing this as premature, or presumptuous, or something, and they have some sort of visceral reaction to that. However, I do not believe that any people (other than me) were really confused in the process. I made my intentions clear, and some people reacted badly to that because I didn't follow the process (for which I apologize again). But calling it a draft PEP is a distraction (because of the visceral reaction), but is not really what I would call confusing. My intention actually is to try to build something that is worthy of the standard library, and to eventually try to get it accepted, because I perceive a hole there, with a lot of point solutions being done to solve a common problem, and I believe the pushback is coming from people who fully understood that intention from my posting. I will try to say "hey -- here's a hole in the library and a proposal for how to fix it" more diplomatically and in the correct forum in the future, but it would be disingenuous for me to disown my goal of getting a better configparser into the standard library. Regards, Pat
From: Patrick Maupin on 1 Mar 2010 14:30
On Mar 1, 12:40 pm, Daniel Fetchinson <fetchin...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really > > smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We > > don't need another configuration language. I can't even say "yet > > another" because there's already a "yet another" called yaml. > > And in case you are new here let me assure you that Paul is saying > this with his full intention of being helpful to you. I also would > think that working on such a project might be fun and educational for > you but completely useless if you have users other than yourself in > mind. Again, I'm trying to be helpful here, so you can focus on a > project that is both fun/educational for you and also potentially > useful for others. This RSON business is not one of them. OK, but I am a bit unclear on what you and/or Paul are claiming. It could be one of a number of things. For example: - There is a preexisting file format suitable for my needs, so I should not invent another one. - If I invent a file format suitable for my needs, it couldn't possibly be general enough for anybody else. - Even if it was general enough for somebody else, there would only be two of them. I've been known to waste time (or be accused of wasting time) on various endeavors, but I like to know exactly *why* it is perceived to be a waste. Regards, Pat |