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, but I am of the opinion that if code is easy to read because of good variable naming, it is not necessary to add more comments. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
