I've switched to using Python for configuration files about 6 years ago, and stopped writing "little languages" of my own. There is a great deal of flexibility and extensibility from using a general purpose language, and it has a fully documented syntax with good error messages. On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Denis Shevchenko <for.dshevchenko@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27.11.2010 00:04, Stephen Nuchia wrote:
From: Denis Shevchenko [mailto:for.dshevchenko@gmail.com]
Is there any interest in a library for configuration file parsing?
Having done this once, just before TCL was announced, I won't ever do it again. Ousterhout's reasoning is, in my opinion, unassailable. Configuration files might as well be written in a full-featured, widely-understood embedded scripting language.
http://www.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi-bin/papers/tcl-usenix.pdf
That would be Python now, right?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Hmm... Sorry, but I do not quite understand your idea... TCL, Python... I'm not familiar with script languages.
I propose a C++-solution which seems to me a easy-to-use and flexible and which I use myself for all my Linux-daemons. And I suggested that if this solutionseems convenientto me, It may seem convenient for others developers. I'm just trying to determine the interest in it...
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost