Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:56 PM
Renaming proposals, round 2:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
------------ -------------
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
staff-nonstaff.)
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
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Notes:
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).
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
