3 ms·

I wish it supported setup.cfg

danpalmer 4y ago
Out of interest... why? From what I can tell the community really seems to be adopting pyproject.toml as the standard and most tools are supporting it as their primary or only configuration option now. A few are using setup.cfg, but that seems to be for legacy reasons rather than an active decision. I'm not a huge fan of TOML as a configuration format personally, but it's at least more capable than cfg files. I'm really keen to know why you feel cfg support would be useful.
- andrewshadura 4y ago
  To be honest, I feel like setup.cfg hasn’t been given a chance to prove itself useful. Just as it was made possible to use setup.cfg only (without setup.py), it’s been almost immediately taken over by pyproject.toml. However, for those who actually migrated their projects to setup.cfg, migrating once again doesn’t bring that many benefits (but e.g. loses compat with flake8). Besides, setup.cfg’s syntax is slightly more elegant, or at least I think so :) By the way, why do you think it is more capable? As far as I know, setup.cfg has some feature toml (intentionally) doesn’t support (not that they’re useful in this context anyway).
  - danpalmer 4y ago
    I've always thought of TOML as not far off a superset of the configparser format, although with a different API in code. I realise most tools don't use the extent of configparser, but coming from JSON and YAML, I always found the more advanced configparser features counter-intuitive and awkward to use. I'm not a huge fan of TOML, but it has the necessary primitive values (strings, numbers, booleans), and some reasonable structures for managing collections and nesting.
- snowe2010 3y ago
  Is there seriously another standard being set up in the Python community? When will it end? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m seriously asking when the community is going to actually solve the tooling problem without making everything worse with each successive update.
  - kzrdude 3y ago
    rye's author was in before that https://github.com/mitsuhiko/rye/discussions/6 https://github.com/mitsuhiko/rye/discussions/6
    - snowe2010 3y ago
      I'm not asking rye's author. I'm asking here. When will python maintainers decide that enough is enough and actually design a working language, tooling and all. Python is my _most hated language_ and it is because of stuff like this. I might actually use python or at least not hate it if people would stop pretending like it's the greatest language on earth and actually fix the worst part of it. If stuff like this keeps happening though, I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

Out of interest... why? From what I can tell the community really seems to be adopting pyproject.toml as the standard and most tools are supporting it as their primary or only configuration option now. A few are using setup.cfg, but that seems to be for legacy reasons rather than an active decision. I'm not a huge fan of TOML as a configuration format personally, but it's at least more capable than cfg files. I'm really keen to know why you feel cfg support would be useful.

andrewshadura 4y ago
To be honest, I feel like setup.cfg hasn’t been given a chance to prove itself useful. Just as it was made possible to use setup.cfg only (without setup.py), it’s been almost immediately taken over by pyproject.toml. However, for those who actually migrated their projects to setup.cfg, migrating once again doesn’t bring that many benefits (but e.g. loses compat with flake8). Besides, setup.cfg’s syntax is slightly more elegant, or at least I think so :) By the way, why do you think it is more capable? As far as I know, setup.cfg has some feature toml (intentionally) doesn’t support (not that they’re useful in this context anyway).
- danpalmer 4y ago
  I've always thought of TOML as not far off a superset of the configparser format, although with a different API in code. I realise most tools don't use the extent of configparser, but coming from JSON and YAML, I always found the more advanced configparser features counter-intuitive and awkward to use. I'm not a huge fan of TOML, but it has the necessary primitive values (strings, numbers, booleans), and some reasonable structures for managing collections and nesting.
snowe2010 3y ago
Is there seriously another standard being set up in the Python community? When will it end? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m seriously asking when the community is going to actually solve the tooling problem without making everything worse with each successive update.
- kzrdude 3y ago
  rye's author was in before that https://github.com/mitsuhiko/rye/discussions/6 https://github.com/mitsuhiko/rye/discussions/6
  - snowe2010 3y ago
    I'm not asking rye's author. I'm asking here. When will python maintainers decide that enough is enough and actually design a working language, tooling and all. Python is my _most hated language_ and it is because of stuff like this. I might actually use python or at least not hate it if people would stop pretending like it's the greatest language on earth and actually fix the worst part of it. If stuff like this keeps happening though, I seriously doubt that will ever happen.