Can't seem to start on this

[Kene Meniru]

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

> That works too.  It's just that you had users writing Python code but
> assumed that a three line subclass was beyond them.  Not requiring them
> to write any Python code is a better option than the first one (global
> variables) that you proposed.  That's all I am trying to say.
> 

I understand.

>> program behaves or perhaps a building component. In that case any of
>> the other modules can be updated instead of "A". Actually "A" will
>> not be part of the packaged program.
> 
> Or "A" becomes the script that parses the config file and runs the
> other code.
> 

Yes. To be more precise, later I will create "A_Interface" to provide the 
user with an interface for creating the contents of "A". "A_Interface" will 
then parse "A", calling "B" as required to create the artifact. I had wanted 
to jump into "A_Interface" using something like urwid or PyQt but it makes 
sense to work with "A" directly for now.

Thanks for taking the time to understand.