[PATCH synaptics 1/2] Added "friction physics" so coasting can stop on its own.

[Chris Bagwell]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Peter Hutterer
<peter.hutterer at who-t.net> 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
>> <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> 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
>> >> ><peter.hutterer at who-t.net> 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