On 8/8/06, Mikko Lehtonen <scoopr / iki.fi> wrote:
>   Ah, excellent, didn't know about snarl, with ruby bindings it might be
>   really useful.

My thoughts exactly -- it (snarl), is poorly publicized, but seems
stable and useful.

>   I'd like clarification in the rdoc that zero timeout is the same as
>   infinite timeout (maybe a constant for it even?)

Fixed in docs and added a NO_TIMEOUT constant.

>   And the update method doesn't check for the icon being nil before
>   trying to expand the path, so I can't give nil for it (which is
>   actually the default)

Fixed -- this is why I need tests and this at least I can test for --
I will add some interface tests today.

>   Also the examples 2-4 seem to use a number for the icons, but again,
>   it tries to expand the path and fails. I guess it's supposed to be the
>   timeout?

Yup, initially I did not support icons, the examples will be fixed later today.

>   Otherwise it seems perfect, thank you for it  =)

You are very welcome, thanks for finding my rough edges
pth