Re: Gets rid of length in the docs. (issue 4965053)

[Trevor Daniels]

Mike Solomon wrote Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:45 PM

> I believe that Trevor is claiming that 
> #(stem::length 5) is worse from a UI-perspective 
> than #5.

Yes.  
 
> I think he is right insofar as stem::length 
> means there are more things to type, 

No.  That's not the point.  A user wanting to
change the length of a stem has to work out how
to do it.  Looking up 'length in the IR was
do-able, as the LM explains in some detail how 
to do that.  Relating "length" to Y-extent is not 
an obvious step, more so for a user unfamiliar with
extents.  Then having to use an unusual construct
makes it even worse.  Users have a hard enough
time with {}, #s, ' and `.  Now we have ::.

> but I think that if the person has gotten to the 
> point where they are doing tweaks, they can write 
> #(stem::length 5) instead of #5 with little to 
> no extra mental overhead 

Wrong.  It is not capable of being determined a
priori.  Much less remembered by anyone unversed
in scheme.

> (especially if it is explained in the docs).  

I guess I may have to do this :(  It's quite an
extension to the LM though, and one we decided
against when laying out the schema for the
documentation.  All the scheme stuff goes in
the Extending manual under Interfaces for
programmers.  Not a comfortable place for the
typical user. 

Trevor