Replies: 1 comment
-
|
That looks interesting and I'd definitely would welcome a PR! I'm pretty relaxed about backwards compatibility, but if we can keep it, that's a plus. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I’d like to propose adding optional TOML-based configuration with lightweight profiles to complement the current -m / -p workflow. I’m starting this as a discussion because I had already begun testing this feature before discovering the existing RawConfigParser support. Since that implementation appears to be kept primarily for legacy compatibility, I wanted to see if there is interest in a more modern, structured alternative.
Example usage and config:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions