Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.

Rayne Wrote:

> Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.

Check out this:
# ISBN-10: 0684868016
# ISBN-13: 978-0684868011

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Anyone <anyone@mail.com> wrote:
> Rayne Wrote:
>
>> Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.
>
> Check out this:
> # ISBN-10: 0684868016
> # ISBN-13: 978-0684868011
>

Clever reply!

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

> Clever reply!

To the contrary:

| Even good conversationalists sometimes find themselves in
| situations where the conversation is just not going the way they
| want it to. This book provides techniques to help you better
| direct and control the conversation at such times. (ISBN-13:
| 978-0684868011, page 14f)

Hints to ISBN-13: 978-0684868011 are not among those techniques.

Ummm---a hint, that some technique is not described in ISBN-13: 978- 0684868011 is in it neither---we successfully opened ISBN-10: 0470065532 ISBN-13: 978-0470065532 :-)

-manfred

-- 
If life is going to exist in this Universe, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion. (Douglas Adams)

Rayne wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.

I wrote sort of a half-ini parser a while back.  It doesn't support ini headers, but you could probably write that in relatively easily.

Pretty web version: http://www.fsdev.net/repositories/entry/tick/trunk/tick/server/Conf.d

Direct source download: http://svn.fsdev.net/tick/trunk/server/Conf.d

It's GPLv3, but if you need a more flexible license consider this my dual-licensing for that one file under whatever license you want (IOTW BSD).

Hope that helps you some.

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Rayne <DiscipleRayne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.

Is there some reason you are really set on using a crappy format like ini?

There are several decent JSON parsers.  I've been using the one from Cashew.  Tango has one now too I think.

--bb

Bill Baxter Wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Rayne <DiscipleRayne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.
> 
> Is there some reason you are really set on using a crappy format like ini?
> 
> There are several decent JSON parsers.  I've been using the one from Cashew.  Tango has one now too I think.
> 
> --bb

Yep, I do actually. But it looks like I don't have a choice.

Chris R. Miller Wrote:

> Rayne wrote:
> > Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.
> 
> I wrote sort of a half-ini parser a while back.  It doesn't support ini headers, but you could probably write that in relatively easily.
> 
> Pretty web version: http://www.fsdev.net/repositories/entry/tick/trunk/tick/server/Conf.d
> 
> Direct source download: http://svn.fsdev.net/tick/trunk/server/Conf.d
> 
> It's GPLv3, but if you need a more flexible license consider this my dual-licensing for that one file under whatever license you want (IOTW BSD).
> 
> Hope that helps you some.

Awesome Yes it does help, thank's

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Rayne <DiscipleRayne@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.
> 
> Is there some reason you are really set on using a crappy format like ini?

What's so bad about ini?

1) It's simple.  Even people with little to no computer savvy can look at an ini file and deduce how to make things work.

2) It's easy to parse.

3) It's not platform-dependent.  Using the line iterator in Tango you
don't even have to be cognizant of the differences between /r/n and /n.
 Just go!

4) It's simple enough to be edited from a command-line editor.

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Chris R. Miller <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Rayne <DiscipleRayne@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just wondering if anyone had because it doesnt seen that the creators of Tango have, and their crappy properties stuff doesnt appeal to me in the least bit.
>>
>> Is there some reason you are really set on using a crappy format like ini?
>
> What's so bad about ini?
>
> 1) It's simple.  Even people with little to no computer savvy can look at an ini file and deduce how to make things work.
>
> 2) It's easy to parse.
>
> 3) It's not platform-dependent.  Using the line iterator in Tango you
> don't even have to be cognizant of the differences between /r/n and /n.
>  Just go!
>
> 4) It's simple enough to be edited from a command-line editor.

It's not hierarchical.

But you're right, if you never have any plans to go beyond very simple key=value uses, then it's fine.  But if that's all you need then maybe you don't even need ini.  Just a file with plain old
----
foo = bar
x = y
----
will do and you can just read the lines with a simple regex.

That said I don't know the full spec of the ini format.  So maybe it has some tricks I'm not aware of.

--bb