[PATCH wayland-protocols v3] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

[Peter Hutterer]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:59:24PM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
[...]
> > > +    </description>
> > > +
> > > +    <enum name="error">
> > > +      <description summary="wp_pointer_constraints error values">
> > > +	These errors can be emitted in response to wp_pointer_constraints
> > > +	requests.
> > > +      </description>
> > > +      <entry name="already_constrained" value="1"
> > > +	     summary="pointer constraint already requested on that surface"/>
> > > +    </enum>
> > > +
> > > +    <enum name="lifetime">
> > > +      <description summary="constraint lifetime">
> > > +	These values represent different lifetime semantics. They are passed
> > > +	as argument to the factory requests to specify how the constraint
> > > +	lifetimes should be managed.
> > > +      </description>
> > > +      <entry name="oneshot" value="1">
> > > +	<description summary="the pointer constraint is defunct once deactivated">
> > > +	  A oneshot pointer constraint will never re-activate once it has been
> > > +	  deactivated. See the corresponding deactivation event
> > > +	  (wp_locked_pointer.unlocked and wp_confined_pointer.unconfined) for
> > > +	  details.
> > > +	</description>
> > > +      </entry>
> > > +      <entry name="reoccurring" value="2">
> > 
> > drop the 'o', this should be "recurring", goes for all uses of the word
> > below.
> 
> Hmm. I guess so. What I can see about the difference between reoccurring
> and recurring is that recurring means occurring again at a regular
> interval, while reoccurring means maybe occurring again at an irregular
> interval. So is recurring really correct?

oh, right. checked the definitions, you're right. ignore my comment please.

Cheers,
   Peter