Jason Tackaberry wrote:
> Did you consider having a monitor(bool) method, and a readonly
> monitoring property that returns the current monitoring state?

I did not like monitoring(bool) and neither do I like monitor(bool). I
don't know, it feels better with monitor = bool. If using a functions is
better than a property because the setter does complex stuff, I would
prefer enable_monitoring() and disable_monitoring(). Besides, a user
only enables and never disables it. At least I can not think about a use
case where I want to disable it again later. Note: if you loose the
reference to the object it gets automaticly disabled.


Dischi

-- 
A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds
good, and a real one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Freevo-devel mailing list
Freevo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel

Reply via email to