'nother testing question

[Simon Thum]

Chuck Robey wrote:
> xf86SetIntOption()).  I sure wish I understood the odd turn of mind that let
> these functions be defined as "Set" funcs instead of "Get" funcs.  Makes no
> sense to me, anyhow, but as long as it works, I guess it doesn't matter too much.
It's counter-intuitive but simple: *Set* marks the option as processed. 
That way, unprocessed options can be spit out to the log, which makes 
finding typos easier.