On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:24:36PM -0500, Chris Bagwell wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Peter Hutterer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:03:43PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote: >> >> On 20/08/2010, at 1:38 PM, Chris Bagwell wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Peter Hutterer >> >> ><[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>+.BI "Option \*qCoastingFriction\*q \*q" float \*q >> >> >>+Number of scrolls per second per second to decrease the >> >> >>coasting speed. Default >> >> > >> >> > ^ typo? >> >> >> >> Presumably the friction is being stated as an acceleration, so how >> >> about "scrolls per second squared" or maybe "scrolls per squared >> >> second" since some argue that the former is ambiguous as to what the >> >> square applies to. Or maybe it should be "(scrolls per second) per >> >> second" to emphasise that is the rate at which speed is decreased... >> > >> > how about "scrolls/s²"? >> > >> >> Ah, I get it once I know its not a typo. Any of those choices will >> help the reader in same way I think. But here is my go at it: >> >> Number of scrolls per second multiplied by seconds passed to decrease >> coasting speed each second. > > wow, that confused me even more than the scrolls per second per second :)
Agree, and I was unable to come up with better! > > maybe we should just say "it's complicated, just guess a number between 0 > and 255" in the man page. > I think any of the "squared" solutions is good at expressing its complicated and solves my brains tendency to filter out duplicate words when reading. Sorry for the nit pick. Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
