On Monday, October 1, 2012 10:42:02 PM UTC+8, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 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