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.