On 11/3/10 2:49 PM, "Mark Polesky" <markpole...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Note that item2 is not necessarily below item1; for >> example, 'loose-staff-spacing will measure upwards from >> the loose line if 'staff-affinity = #UP. > > Trevor wrote: >> I wonder if affinity/nonaffinity are optimal. Are they >> better than relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff? > > Or target/opposite, reference/opposite, refstaff/oppstaff? > > Actually, now I really like refstaff/oppstaff: > nonstaff-refstaff-spacing > nonstaff-nonstaff-spacing > nonstaff-oppstaff-spacing
ref and opp are abbreviations and not good for non-native-english speakers. nonstaff-associatedstaff-spacing nonstaff-nonstaff-spacing nonstaff-freestaff-spacing or nonstaff-isolatedstaff-spacing Where one staff is associated with the nonstaff and the other staff is free? Looking at a thesaurus, I have some more ideas: nonstaff-relatedstaff vs. nonstaff-unrelatedstaff nonstaff-linkedstaff vs. nonstaff-separatestaff nonstaff-attachedstaff vs. nonstaff-detachedstaff nonstaff-affixedstaff vs. nonstaff-releasedstaff nonstaff-alliedstaff vs. nonstaff-foreignstaff nonstaff-alliedstaff vs. nonstaff-disjoinedstaff >> So my preference is for [groupedstaff-groupedstaff]. > > Trevor, after some consideration, I'm afraid I'm not so much > in favor of groupedstaff-groupedstaff (or it's shorter > cousin). They too strongly suggest the possibility of this: > > [last staff of group] - [first staff of next group] > > Carl Sorensen wrote: >> I just thought of a c': within-group-staff-staff. Longer, >> but might explain it more clearly. > > It would be the longest, but I like the clarity. How do you > feel about > staffgrouped-staff-staff-spacing ? If we're going with this idea, I'd prefer groupedstaff-staff-staff-spacing since it's better english than staffgrouped IMO. > > It's the same length as > within-group-staff-staff-spacing > > but it has one less hyphen, which for some reason I consider > an advantage. Although I might prefer within-group anyway. > Now, if we do use > within-group-staff-staff-spacing Maybe it's withingroup-staff-staff-spacing. This is an exception, so I'm not sure exactly how to best resolve it. > > I thought we might as well shorten > staffgroup-staff-spacing > > to > group-staff-spacing . > > What do you think? I prefer staffgroup-staff spacing, since it's a staffgroup object, not a group object, that we're trying to space. The length of the descriptor is not that important to me -- I don't type it very much. Having it be clear is more important than having it be short. Thanks, Carl > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > Renaming proposals, round 3: > > CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME > ------------ ------------- > next-staff staff-staff > default-next-staff default-staff-staff > > inter-staff nonstaff-refstaff > inter-loose-line nonstaff-nonstaff > non-affinity nonstaff-oppstaff > > between-staff within-group-staff-staff > after-last-staff group-staff > > > _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel