On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:25:36 +0000 Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> said:
> Sure, that sounds good to me! i like the idea of keeping < 0 invalid for now... it leaves wiggle room in future to maybe make it valid and have special meaning but for now is invalid thus can be assumed to not be used. > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:24 AM Olivier Fourdan <ofour...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Mike. > > > > > Okay, if we're not going with uints then at the least can the "use 0 to > > > unset min/max" be changed to "use <= 0 to unset min/max" to explicitly > > > cover that case? > > > > I think we should simply indicate that the width and height must be > > greater than or equal to zero, so we remain consistent with the other > > descriptions (namely set_window_geometry). > > > > Then we could also state that using strictly negative values would raise a > > protocol error? > > > > Cheers, > > Olivier > > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
