On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Soeren Sandmann wrote: > Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> writes: > > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 07:44:15AM -0400, Søren Sandmann wrote: > >> The interface to these function was was very confusing since it gave > >> the impression that they initialized the region from a list of boxes, > >> which they didn't. > >> > >> This patch changes the interface to take just one box and fixes all > >> the callers accordingly. > > > > Why not just change all RegionInit(region, box, 1) calls to use > > RegionInitBoxes(region, box, 1), and add a RegionCreateBoxes() or > > similar? > > Advantage of adding a new function are that that it will automatically > catch cases where "0" is currently being passed for the number of boxes, > and people who haven't paid attention won't be tempted to create new > bugs.
Sure -- so if you change everyone to use RegionInitBoxes, then happy days, right? Surely that's the API we want, noting that the extent-only case you've implemented with RegionInit(rgn, extents) is possible with RegionInitBoxes(rgn, extents, 1). Seems like it'd be best to just remove the arguments completely rather than making them extent-only, such that they created/initialised to an empty region. That way there's no lingering confusion at all. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ 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