X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to;
        bh=OJKDkibOtrFV6jFkP7C2HFEEruVO4TYrnW2R4/6v35g=;
        b=fD4q7O5XpvcunFpOI0Xbp92oe6NW2/nAR4NBBtcnrWECxWthj4BoIg/BHCPYTTlYAC
         YfGENQFeMn2ogeALnOgtiKYM3A8E9kSQbPtNzwOT3Zv+1hpq3da/dAhmg+UdL+EBskfs
         h3ATWxEgS/9UlAJNXmKJGKs++iYaGuc8k52m3dyyK96W7XWVtevtoR/jPKVkNGvlMaf/
         JQlFir5WLg9BFvvRDR+zESIH5Y8B456M0doCUzAuhJ7h/t4ZG09KTXYb06yHJ34z0KJG
         NLMCLMWvhDnIi2+T3KAMN/Dj+Hv68VMHEWGBQd0FEN/2um2xxNiX5GaUj32nqnySToIj
         xC8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to;
        bh=OJKDkibOtrFV6jFkP7C2HFEEruVO4TYrnW2R4/6v35g=;
        b=kHh6P2Vja1fc3zdTJjs+RR0mJsCx3IDkUf8S00TD95tXdhh1FcO8nEP0mqhYqeX0O3
         90aVV5u5rlurcbMRCmsYmA6DoED8dna+mdieOtVxMtKGUBkQ30oENtjOIFvlFYY/e4K7
         fZdEupzW7s34htOy0E9P6UmxF+3M+I1+kwr7x4198LG5L/0v40GjGLOGV24xXc1zjG60
         fjs4eOAZw0bz/+ON2n/BqJJPNNk5/i+1KpkRWlCiP0006QKSG3wBJEPrz4QNq0BfLoiB
         TyvxPIlOC9Ne9vnrGviQCoqmkcU71EcuY9OxtkZsMDDER1cy30PMnkZMC25GjnyTIdyc
         48yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLxiA5QVGgfykhfFK4kboVPAGx6oUcvwZB1SVx4gKZ7IUPZIX5HVyDS6Xx+itk5dJpbKMtVNUPGnPKc1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.90.137 with SMTP id bw9mr8193176wjb.120.1456629143702;
 Sat, 27 Feb 2016 19:12:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201602272322.u1RNMjrQ001204@envy.delorie.com>
References: <CAC4O8c89o1=fvhY=hYBSDb9W1wbruhBFR93r2TPzsuT1ChJkCw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c_eP=Dx8YELmaZ9nvK_3yo97JHRfEYhpi7NXj2dnEBLrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201602260114 DOT u1Q1EFRk019336 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c9ZxsCOanQCm5tjZJaTFF1YVeRywynEkgJfXcXv=covsA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201602262010 DOT u1QKA2Hf024379 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c898gX9Bqr=o1dt=SiOr7hwVOmHojJTPp-2-cibW0DowQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201602272322 DOT u1RNMjrQ001204 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:12:23 -0900
Message-ID: <CAC4O8c-oyC1VtT8j5n=CJOpzaUFbwT1JbPqJh02dAg0g3yLaAw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: re-instituting GetXY()
From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:22 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> Seems to work.  So I guess doing things this way the &x and &y args aren't
>> used for anything, and the rest of the actions in the sequence know to get
>> the coordinates from a global somewhere?
>
> Yup.
>
>> It looks like there are only a handful of actions that set need_coord_msg
>> non-NULL.  Is there any reason to have both mechanisms?  I haven't run into
>> anything that seems to need multiple clicks.
>
> Sometimes an action itself needs a point, and provides a reason.  It
> would fail without one, so it says so.
>
> Sometimes you mix many actions together, some of which need points,
> but the reason for the *mix* differs, so you can change the message
> the user sees.  For example, the list of actions that converts a
> selection to an element needs a point for the element's mark, but none
> of the individual actions involved know that (IIRC the cut() needs a
> point, but it doesn't know it's being used to convert an element).
>
> In these cases, GetXY() lets you "document" a set of actions in a way
> that's meaningful to the user.

Ok thanks.  At first glance it's highly surprising that GetXY() ends up needing
to declare itself as an action that doesn't require a point, and I suppose
that's why it's got it's present "".  GetXY() effectively acts only on behalf
of other actions.  If there's any small renaming or refactor that might make
all this clearer it might be worth it.  I don't know what it would be though
so unless you have ideas I'll just comment it in GetXY() and make this change.

Britton