2011/8/7 m...@apollinemike.com <m...@apollinemike.com>: > On Aug 7, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote: > >> 2011/8/6 m...@apollinemike.com <m...@apollinemike.com>: >>> On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:09 AM, lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> i tried writing a review, but i don't understand what's going on here. >>>> Can you add some comments to the code? >>> >>> The function fit_factor pushes up the height of a slur if there is an >>> extra-encompass-object in the way. My change makes this function ignore >>> all extra-encompass-objects close to the extremes of a slur, as these >>> objects have a tendency to push a slur up disproportionately high. These >>> objects are still penalized in the scoring, which results in their >>> avoidance if possible. >> >> Thanks. Could you add this to the source as a comment? >> This sounds reasonable, however i still have a hard time reading this >> code because variable names aren't descriptive... What dz_unit, >> dz_perp, curve_xext are? What pext.intersect (curve_xext) does? >> >> cheers, >> Janek > > Hey Janek, > > I'm certainly not against adding comments, but I think that when the code > does a good job of explaining stuff via variable names, comments can clutter > what's going on. For example, dz_unit to me sounds like a unit vector (which > it is), dz_perp is the vector perpendicular to this, and curve_xext is the > extent of the curve from attachment point to attachment point. This could > potentially be the subject of a future GOP
Probably. For me these names aren't descriptive at all, both in terms of what they are and what they do (why not dz_perpendicular for example? and what dz means?), but i think there's no point discussing this now. cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
