On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Jason Friedman <ja...@powerpull.net> wrote: >> Is there a reason to use that format, rather than using Python >> notation? I've at times made config files that simply get imported. >> Instead of a dictionary, you'd have a module object: >> >> >> # config.py >> VAR1='foo' >> VAR2='bar' >> VAR3=VAR1+VAR2 >> > There is a reason: /path/to/export_file exists for Bash scripts, too, > and I do not think I could get Bash to read config.py in the format > stated above. I want to maintain only one file.
(Responding on-list and hoping it was merely oversight that had that email come to me personally) Ah, fair enough. Well, since you're using the full range of bash functionality, the only viable way to parse it is with bash itself. I'd recommend going with the version you have above: > * * * * * . /path/to/export_file && /path/to/script.py Under what circumstances is this not an option? That'd be the next thing to consider. Alternatively, you may want to consider making your own config file format. If you consciously restrict yourself to a severe subset of bash functionality, you could easily parse it in Python - for instance, always look for "export %s=%s" with simple strings for the variable name and value. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list