Re: suggestion: change OctavateEight name to ClefTransposition - opinions?

[Marc Hohl]

Am 06.04.2013 23:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Am 05.04.2013 23:02, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The name "OctavateEight" doesn't have any sense - it doesn't show that
> > > this grob is related to the clef, and anyway the clef can be
> > > "transposed" by any amount, not just an octave.
> > > I suggest to rename this grob to ClefTransposition or something
> > > similar (since this is not strictly transposition, it may be best to
> > > use a slightly different name... ClefShift? At any rate,
> > > ClefOctavation would make much more sense than OctavateEight).
> > > We can also change names of some related context properties, for
> > > example clefOctavation, clefOctavationStyle etc.  My only worry is
> > > that they may become too similar (clefTransposition and
> > > ClefTransposition).
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I'd prefer ClefTransposition over ClefShift, since the latter
> > implies some shift relative to the clef's default position.
>
> I think I'd like ClefModifier.  Something like

+1

>      `clefOctavation' (integer)
>            Add this much extra octavation.  Values of 7 and -7 are
>            common.
>
> does not make sense.  Transposition is not really accurate since the
> number is in steps rather than diatonic.  It is a bit disconcerting that
> values of 7, -7, 14 and -14 lead to numbers 8, 8, 15 and 15.
>
> I don't find "shift" all too bad: one can talk about pitch shifting
> after all, and for spatial displacements we tend to use "offset".