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