Hello, > I maintain a few configuration files in Python syntax (mainly nested
> dicts of ints and strings) and use execfile() to read them back to > Python. This has been working great; it combines the convenience of > pickle with the readability of Python. So far each configuration is > contained in a single standalone file; different configurations are > completely separate files. > Now I'd like to factor out the commonalities of the different > configurations in a master config and specify only the necessary > modifications and additions in each concrete config file. I tried the > simplest thing that could possibly work: I've been working with a similar problem; indeed, posted a question about it several weeks ago. I can't speak to the issue of factoring out commonalities, but I've been trying to find a really simple, elegant way to avoid the exec functions. My approaches have been variations in __import__() and loading as file, etc. Everything I've tried seems a bit kludgy. One issue, as I recall, was that __import__() became rather unreliable when you crossed directory boundaries. Question: Why do so many sources discourage the use of exec(), execfile(), etc.? Comment: The Karrigell Python web framework (http://karrigell.sourceforge.net/en/include.htm) has a truly elegant function for loading stuff like some_config.py called Include(). I haven't looked at the source, but it is very handy. I really wish it was basic Python function. All the best, Lloyd
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
