On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Graham Percival <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 11:46:51AM +0200, [email protected] wrote: >> 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), > > To me, dz_unit sounds like the difference in the z_unit vectors. > I mean, "d" is "delta", right? > > I personally would have used z_unit_vector unless there was a > clear tradition of using _v for a vector, in which case I'd use > z_unit_v. > > ... BTW, you *are* using "z" as the "vector going away from the > page", right? I mean, x_unit would be the unit vector going from > left to right along the page, y_unit would be the unit vector > going from bottom to top along the page, while z_unit is going > away from the page? (like, to implement "layers" or something > like that?)
Most of the offset code implicitly identifies an offset with a complex number, and z is commonly used to name a complex number. The complex number analogon is probably more confusing than it is useful for anything. It could be cleaned up if someone is interested in cleaning things. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
