On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 08:31:04PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 19/03/15 08:06 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:37:02PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote:
> >> On 18/03/15 09:23 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> >>> If the client calls wl_pointer.set_cursor with the same surface and hot
>
On 19/03/15 08:06 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:37:02PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote:
>> On 18/03/15 09:23 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>>> If the client calls wl_pointer.set_cursor with the same surface and hot
>>> spot coordinate that is already set, don't do anything as no state wa
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:37:02PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 18/03/15 09:23 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > If the client calls wl_pointer.set_cursor with the same surface and hot
> > spot coordinate that is already set, don't do anything as no state was
> > changed.
> >
> > This avoids an issue
On 18/03/15 09:23 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> If the client calls wl_pointer.set_cursor with the same surface and hot
> spot coordinate that is already set, don't do anything as no state was
> changed.
>
> This avoids an issue where a client setting the same cursor surface
> multiple times would rece
If the client calls wl_pointer.set_cursor with the same surface and hot
spot coordinate that is already set, don't do anything as no state was
changed.
This avoids an issue where a client setting the same cursor surface
multiple times would receive wl_surface.leave/enter on that surface
every time
