On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:20:08 -0700, <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
