I just made a portable module for reading and writing INI files. INI files come in handy! This code is public domain. Here's a little example:

Ini ini = new Ini("foo.ini");
with(ini.addSection("mysection"))
{
    value("keyname", "hello world");
}
ini.save();

Unit tests too! I like it.

"Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:bqdfpi$125h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I just made a portable module for reading and writing INI files. INI files come in handy! This code is public domain. Here's a little example:
>
> Ini ini = new Ini("foo.ini");
> with(ini.addSection("mysection"))
> {
>     value("keyname", "hello world");
> }
> ini.save();
>
>
>
>
>

Vathix wrote:
> I just made a portable module for reading and writing INI files. INI files
> come in handy! This code is public domain. Here's a little example:
> 
> Ini ini = new Ini("foo.ini");
> with(ini.addSection("mysection"))
> {
>     value("keyname", "hello world");
> }
> ini.save();
> 

I'd thought of doing my own INI lib, now I guess I won't have to.  I like your concept of wrapping sections into objects, very slick.

C. Sauls
Invironz

I still love it, just wanted to throw in a few suggestions.  First off, do you think IniSection.keys() might be rewritable to the following?:

IniKey[] keys()
{
	IniKey[] ikeys;
	foreach(IniKey ikey; this)
	{
		ikeys ~= ikey;
	}
	return ikeys;
}

I tried to preserve your coding style, but I think its a bit cleaner. Correct or ignore me if I missed an important reason for it being the way it already is.

Also, could we get IniSection.value(IniKey, char[]) and IniSection.value(char[], char[]) to return the new value back to the calling expression?  Makes for a more transparent interface in my opinion, but I'm odd.

C. Sauls
Invironz

"Chris Sauls" <ibisbasenji@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bqnis4$m4p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I still love it, just wanted to throw in a few suggestions.  First off, do you think IniSection.keys() might be rewritable to the following?:
>
> IniKey[] keys()
> {
> IniKey[] ikeys;
> foreach(IniKey ikey; this)
> {
> ikeys ~= ikey;
> }
> return ikeys;
> }
>
> I tried to preserve your coding style, but I think its a bit cleaner. Correct or ignore me if I missed an important reason for it being the way it already is.

The way I have it, ikeys doesn't need to be reallocated at all. It might waste a few bytes, but I don't think it's enough to worry about.

>
> Also, could we get IniSection.value(IniKey, char[]) and IniSection.value(char[], char[]) to return the new value back to the calling expression?  Makes for a more transparent interface in my opinion, but I'm odd.

The way I see it is that you already have the value, why have the function do a bit more work when it doesn't need to :)  - I know I'm way over concerned with efficiency.