Keith, On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:03:49 -0400, Adam Goode <a...@spicenitz.org> wrote: > > On 06/18/2010 03:08 AM, Keith Packard wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:19:04 -0400, Adam Goode <a...@spicenitz.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20334 > > > > > > Disjoint areas have always been the issue with this bug; not sure this > > > solves it? > > > > > > > Hmm, I guess you're right. But maybe at least Gnome, which doesn't > > appear to support disjoint areas in the GUI configuration program, could > > use this? > > If this interface is going to support disjoint regions (which the > suggested implementation does), then it better have defined semantics > for how to 'jump' from one area to another. As I recall, That's what > stopped progress with the RandR cursor confinement. > Yeah, my patches don't do anything about this problem. It just uses the extents box of the region as the constraint. Of course, nothing stops it from being smarter in the future -- it's just not within the scope of what I'm trying to do. > > In any case, with sensible semantics, I wouldn't mind having cursor > confinement disconnected from the window hierarchy. Ok, is there anything about these patches that you don't like? What can I do to get this in to $XORG_NEXT? Thanks, James
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
