Re: [Scwm-devs] Re: done testing key-mover-xtest.scm

[Scott L. <sl...@cs...>]

There are other ways to test this without exposing a dual interface though.
For instance, you could expose a function that sets debugging flags that
disallow the use of certain features of the X server.  Seems bad to make
the client decide which one they want when we can easily determine it
for them (perhaps on the scheme side, perhaps on the C side).

- Scott

> To test it, for one. :-)
> 
> Greg
> 
> Scott Lenser <sl...@cs...> writes:
> 
> > > Scott Lenser <sl...@cs...> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Ah, I see.  I didn't realize one was more robust than the other.  I didn't
> > > > actually look to see how they were implemented much.  Couldn't this
> > > > be folded into the move-pointer primitive so that you always get the
> > > > best one that your version of X supports?  In any case, the function
> > > > to move the virtual viewports is identical between the two versions.
> > > 
> > > It's possible, but sometimes you specifically want one or the other, so
> > > the "smart" one would have to be another layer of abstraction.  The
> > > stuff that's truly duplicated definitely should be factored out into
> > > something separate.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Greg
> > > 
> > 
> > When would you want the non-xtest one if it the xtest one is available?
> > 
> > - Scott