[Python-Dev] configparser: should optionxform be idempotent? (original) (raw)

Inada Naoki songofacandy at gmail.com
Thu Mar 7 05:41:21 EST 2019

That argument could be used for any use of optionxform, though - instead of using the default optionxform, use explicitly-lowercased values everywhere instead.

It can't be usable if the config format case-insensitive.

value = (cfg.get("section", "name") or cfg.get("section", "Name") or cfg.get("section", "nAme") or cfg.get("section", "naMe")...)

I still prefer option (b), allowing general functions for optionxform. However, I will say (and I should have said in my first mail) that this is a view based purely on theoretical considerations. I've never explicitly used optionxform myself, and none of my code would be impacted in any way regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

Paul

If we choose (b), I think core developer must check test coverage for optionxform before documenting non-idempotent optionxform is allowed explicitly.

I don't have motivation for that because I never used configparser in such way.

The PR looks good to me for the particular case the issue describe. So I will merge the PR without updating document when we chose (b).

But let's wait a few days for other comments.

Regards,

-- Inada Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list