On 07/10/15 07:37, Howard Chu wrote: > Note: It's tempting to just merge the new xcursor_init2 function into > xcursor_init1 since they're very similar, but that's a bad idea. The > xcursor_init1 function really is meant for init'ing an unused cursor; > it's expected that immediately after, a full cursor-positioning action > will occur. > > xcursor_init2 is meant for xcursors that have already been positioned, > in which case their physical position is updated in order to keep their > logical position unchanged.
Maybe you should document that in the code instead of in a mail message.
