On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Martin Dengler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:01:52PM -0400, Eben Eliason wrote: > > I'll /try/ to keep my comments mostly to the UI and leave the code > > review for others. I'll also fail at that to some extent, since I > > have curiosities about bits and pieces. > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Martin Dengler > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > + return self._master.flags & gst.interfaces.MIXER_TRACK_MUTE \ > > > + == gst.interfaces.MIXER_TRACK_MUTE > > > > If MIXER_TRACK_MUTE is a bit mask, isn't the equality check redundant? > > It's not a bitmask, IIUC. So no, it's not redundant AFAICS. But yes, > it'd read much more nicely without the equality check if it wasn't.
Hmmm, but you appear to be using it as such anyway. How else could the boolean & be interpreted logically otherwise? (I may very well be missing something here.) It was pointed out to me that one reason for it would be to return a boolean type, instead of an int, which is a valid assessment (I'm too familiar with C....). If that's the core reason, however, I might find simply casting to bool clearer. > > Let's use the dialog-ok and dialog-cancel icons for now, which will > > match the current mockups for the mic and camera. We can change them > > easily later if we need to. > > dialog-ok to go with the "Unmute" text, and -cancel to go with "Mute"? Yup. > > > + mute_item_text += '...' > > > > This is a bad habit that everyone seems to get into. Cut this line. > > Sorry! I know the rule(s) you cite, and must blame lack of sleep for > leaving this in. I was cargo-culting "Disconnect..." from > network/wireless.py, I think. Good! I expect not to have to slap you again for this. :-P - Eben _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar