[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 23:20:41 -0000

Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:56 PM

Renaming proposals, round 2:

------------       -------------
next-staff         staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff

inter-staff        nonstaff-staff

I'd go with Carl's suggestion of nonstaff-affinity
here.  But is this really strictly top-down directional,
or does this apply even when the nonstaff is below the
staff? (The usual placement for lyrics is below the staff to which they have an affinity, and there is no

I wonder if affinity/nonaffinity are optimal.
Are they better than relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff?

inter-loose-line   nonstaff-nonstaff
non-affinity       nonstaff-nonaffinity

between-staff      (see below)
after-last-staff   staffgroup-staff

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


1) "nonstaff" beat out "loose" by a large margin.
  Sorry Carl!  (:

2) all the ideas for "between-staff" so far:
  * names consistent with the item1-item2 format
    a) groupstaff-groupstaff       (Trevor)
    b) groupedstaff-groupedstaff   (Trevor)
    c) grouped-staff-staff         (Mark)

  * shorter names
    d) inside-staffgroup           (Mark)
    e) grouped-staff               (Carl)
    f) grouped-staves              (Carl)

Should we vote on this?  I'd vote for either c or f.  Here
are some of my observations.

I think (c) could easily be interpreted to mean
groupedstaff-ungroupedstaff, since ungroupedstaff is the meaning of staff elsewhere. So my preference is
for (b). It is long, but it's meaning is clearest,
especially as staffgroup exists to help dispel confusion.
I would also be happy with (a) (so no surprises there :)

If we go for the shorter names I prefer (f).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]