Re: Doc: NR 4.1.2: Reorganize vertical dimensions. (issue2316042)

[perpeduumimmobile]

In short: great work, push it.  Two slight remarks on skylines (I prefer
the wording in your answer on my post), and perhaps about Hooke's law.
But I don't have a strong point on the latter.


On 2010/10/02 16:09:22, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:200: @table @code
> On 2010/10/02 09:17:16, perpeduumimmobile wrote:
> > Hm. As long as vertical spacing is not absolutely
> > bullet-proof specified, I don't like to see this
> > sections deleted. [...]
> Are you saying you'd prefer to define the four keys individually
> for each of the eight variables?

Okay, I withdraw...  I somehow thought there are places where markups
have their "origin" on the top, and others on the bottom, but this is
plainly wrong.  Looks like this is still in a flux...  But when we have
the natural choices, we should include them in the docs.  (Distance USA
- Portugal from L.A. ...)

> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:239: the combined items.
> On 2010/10/02 09:17:16, perpeduumimmobile wrote:
> > Yes, but this somehow sounds like a rectangle you
> > can put between two staves or something, and this
> > is _not_ correct (because padding specifies
> > whitespace between the skylines).  I'm not sure
> > why we avoid the "skyline" term in the NR; it's
> > not too hard a concept IMHO.  But if we don't use
> > it, you might think again over this sentence.

> Well, that's why I used the word "unobstructed".  But I could
> easily change it to:
>    "the minimum required amount of unobstructed vertical whitespace
>    "between the skylines of the two items."
> Though that's slightly inaccurate, since markups don't have skylines,
as far as
> I know.  But the idea may be clearer anyway.

I'd prefer this, but that's just me...

> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:246: reference point of a system
is the
> middle line of the nearest
> On 2010/10/02 09:17:16, perpeduumimmobile wrote:
> > For markups, things are different (and yet to
> > specify).
> You mean code-wise, I presume (I did cover markups in this paragraph).

Yup.

> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:248: @code{padding} or
> @code{minimum-distance} are not meaningful,
> On 2010/10/02 09:17:16, perpeduumimmobile wrote:
> > Yes, they are.  They can be stretched, and the
> > resulting space will be larger than padding or
> > minimum-distance.

> "Yes they are meaningful", or "yes they are possible"?

"Yes they are possible."  I admit I can't tell you an example, but I'll
never say it will never be useful... ;-)

> Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:264: @code{+inf.0}.
> On 2010/10/02 09:17:16, perpeduumimmobile wrote:
> > Again, it's a reference.  We can mentioned Hooke's
> > law, don't we?

> Okay, here we go... [...]

Oops, sorry.  I just meant a sentence like "stretchability is the
inverse spring constant in Hooke's law", perhaps in parenthesis; your
explanation is perfect!  It's just for those who already know the law
that they have the right (or even better) understanding from just one
sentence.  I would not expect a physicist's explanation of the law...

> I feel that simply mentioning Hooke's law does little to help the
LilyPond user

Well, not each and every one, but some of the users are math- and
science-addicts, and quite a number of them will have heard of the law.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2316042/