On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:20:08 -0700, <lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org> wrote:
Renaming proposals, round 4: CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME ------------ ------------- next-staff staff-staff default-next-staff default-staff-staff inter-staff nonstaff-relatedstaff inter-loose-line nonstaff-nonstaff non-affinity nonstaff-unrelatedstaff between-staff withingroup-staff-staff after-last-staff staffgroup-staff
[...]
And lastly, I still think reference/opposite is better than related/unrelated: nonstaff-referencestaff nonstaff-oppositestaff But I won't protest. Any last thoughts/votes, or should I go ahead with the proposals listed above
Mark, I had imagined you would simultaneously change staff-affinity (UP / DOWN / CENTER) to reference-direction (UP / DOWN / CENTER) so we can remember that this direction tells us which staff is which between referencestaff and oppositestaff. We might convince Mr Daniels that this is good enough reason to support your (unabbreviated) preference, or he might come up with an even better suggestion for the variable that chooses which direction is the 'related' direction. Everything else looks consistent. The closest I could find to a flaw was that nonstaff-unrelatedstaff-spacing also determines the space between an UP nonstaff and a DOWN nonstaff (if there is no CENTER nonstaff between them) but I honestly prefer understandable names that describe 99% of the use cases, than theoretically perfect ones. -- Keith _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel