Re: critical issues

[Keith OHara]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:31:23 -0800, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:
> ... the concern I had was this.  Quite a lot of the
> documentation was written, not by inspecting the code
> to see what was intended, but by experimenting and
> writing up what was found.  I certainly worked that
> way, and I think Mark and Keith did recently in
> documenting the new spacing stuff.

Pretty much.  If it makes you feel better, I did read a fair bit of the code to 
help build up a mental model of how things worked.  You remember that we 
rejected documenting those cross-staff collisions, until the code made it clear 
to me that some collisions were intentional, and possibly unavoidable.  More 
generally, we naturally sort our experimental findings into possible-bugs and 
oh-that's-how-it-works-s

> Now if you can work
> in something about "working as intended or documented"

That sounds good, and natural.
In most people's minds, documented implies intended.