On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:55:26 +0000, ahoward <ahoward / fsl.noaa.gov> wrote:
> i know this has been kicked around before 

indeed; i.e.:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=1045634364.1063.294.camel%40traken&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Druby%2Bas%2Bconfig%2Bfile%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dcomp.lang.ruby
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=slrn9700sm.ef9.r2d2%40mao.acc.umu.se&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Druby%2Bas%2Bconfig%2Bfile%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dcomp.lang.ruby

> but i don't recall a nice clean solution.

neither do I; let us know about your findings on this one if you please.

Thx,
Simon

PS: What about a YAML config file ? Doesn't that come close to the kind
    of flexibility we are looking for ? You can't write loops or control
    statements but you could put codeblocks in there couldn't you ???

-- 
There are 10 types of people in the world... 
those who understand binary and those who don't.