Re: A standard package for config files is needed

[Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> The reason is not for efficiency. The reason is that if the file is created
> under program control and is not editable by other means, then you can't
> fill it with corrupt data.

Optimist.

> Hence you don't have to check it on the way in to
> be sure some bonehead didn't screw up the syntax.

I would certainly appreciate it, if the read data are still
checked for validity.

And I think you're underestimating the kind of boneheads
(like me), who is willing to use `sed` on MS Word documents
(in desperate moments).

> It also makes the
> implementation a much simpler thing because there doesn't need to be a
> parser.

That's a valid point, although the syntax I imagine for a
text based configuration file format is rather trivial to
parse. If it wasn't trivial to parse, it would be likely to
be difficult to write, which would loose the point of having
text based configuration files.

Jacob
-- 
"Sleep is just a cheap substitute for coffee"