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

[David Kastrup]

pls <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 07.04.2013 um 10:14 schrieb Marc Hohl <address@hidden>:
>
>> 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
> I'd prefer ClefOctavation (or maybe ClefOctaveShift) to ClefModifier
> because it's clearer / more intuitive (at least to me).  ClefModifier
> could be misunderstood to refer to the shape of the symbol.

Well, we _are_ talking about a visual modification, and the specified
number is not an actual ottavation.

For example, something like

{ \clef "treble_5" c d e f }

would be just perfect for commandeering a violin player off to viola
duty.  Ok, there _is_ some slight key signature problem...

-- 
David Kastrup