On 2010-11-09 00:54, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Monday, November 08, 2010 7:14 PM
Keith E OHara wrote:
We will use this in context that makes that first
qualifier almost redundant :
\override Context.StaffGrouper #'withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
This is an excellent point, and
Mark Polesky wrote Monday, November 08, 2010 1:24 AM
Instead of these two:
withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
staffgroup-staff-spacing
Let's stay with these.
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
2010/11/8 Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com:
Instead of these two:
withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
staffgroup-staff-spacing
While these aren't perfect, i'd say that
within-group-staff-staff-spacing
below-group-staff-staff-spacing
inside-group-staff-staff-spacing
Keith E OHara wrote:
We will use this in context that makes that first
qualifier almost redundant :
\override Context.StaffGrouper #'withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
This is an excellent point, and in response I'd like to
propose one more option -- just remove the withingroup
prefix altogether:
Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com writes:
% space between consecutive staves in a system
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-staff-spacing
% space between consecutive staves in a staff-group
\override StaffGrouper #'staff-staff-spacing
The property descriptions could have a brief
On 11/8/10 1:14 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Keith E OHara wrote:
We will use this in context that makes that first
qualifier almost redundant :
\override Context.StaffGrouper #'withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
This is an excellent point, and in response I'd like to
Mark Polesky wrote Monday, November 08, 2010 7:14 PM
Keith E OHara wrote:
We will use this in context that makes that first
qualifier almost redundant :
\override Context.StaffGrouper #'withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
This is an excellent point, and in response I'd like to
propose one more
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:14:11 -0800, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Similarly, I think the two 'staff-staff-spacing properties
would be intuitive and easy enough to keep separate,
mentally:
% space between consecutive staves in a system
\override VerticalAxisGroup
On 11/8/10 9:34 PM, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:14:11 -0800, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Similarly, I think the two 'staff-staff-spacing properties
would be intuitive and easy enough to keep separate,
mentally:
% space between
\override StaffGrouper #'staff-staff-spacing
\override StaffGrouper #'staffgroup-staff-spacing
LGTM
(As I've said before, I admire your persistence :)
If David's comment isn't a valid concern, this is fine with me too.
Werner
___
Renaming proposals, round 4:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
-
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff
inter-staffnonstaff-relatedstaff
inter-loose-line nonstaff-nonstaff
non-affinity nonstaff-unrelatedstaff
Keith E OHara wrote Sunday, November 07, 2010 2:54 AM
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:20:08 -0700,
lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
[...]
And lastly, I still think reference/opposite is better than
related/unrelated:
nonstaff-referencestaff
nonstaff-oppositestaff
But I won't protest. Any last
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 20:08:06 -0700, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Keith E OHara wrote:
I had imagined you would simultaneously change
staff-affinity (UP / DOWN / CENTER)
toreference-direction (UP / DOWN / CENTER)
so we can remember that this direction tells us which
Trevor Daniels wrote:
relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff
Okay, I think enough votes are in to finalize the most
recent proposal:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00137.html
So relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff it will be. I'll have more
time to start making this change later
Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com writes:
Mark Polesky wrote:
Okay, I think enough votes are in to finalize the most
recent proposal:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00137.html
I almost forgot... Can we have one last vote among these
two choices?
1)
Mark Polesky wrote Sunday, November 07, 2010 4:40 PM
Mark Polesky wrote:
Okay, I think enough votes are in to finalize the most
recent proposal:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00137.html
I almost forgot... Can we have one last vote among these
two choices?
1)
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 07:57:33 -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
Can we have one last vote among these
two choices?
1) within-group-staff-staff-spacing
2) withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
Keith: either
Both are usable.
We will use this in context that makes that first qualifier almost redundant :
1) within-group-staff-staff-spacing
2) withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
Werner: 2
I think option 2 is more consistent, but I don't really care.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Oops, forgot to actually *add* Joe to this!
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mark Polesky wrote:
Okay, I think enough votes are in to finalize the most
recent proposal:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00137.html
I almost forgot... Can we have one last vote among these
two
On 11/7/10 9:52 AM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote:
Okay, I think enough votes are in to finalize the most
recent proposal:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-11/msg00137.html
I almost forgot... Can we have one last vote among these
two
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Carl:
David:
James:
Jan:
Jean-Charles:
Keith:
Mark: 1
Trevor:
Valentin: 1
Werner: 2
This is fun, kinda :-)
Cheers,
Valentin.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Valentin: 1*
*was 2, then changed it to 1? Which one is it?
Er, is it the same vote we're talking about? I voted 2 in the other
thread about the 'space alist:
2) initial-distanceminimum-distance
But I thought here
You guys are going to *hate* me for doing this, but I just
thought of a way to keep the StaffGrouper grobs consistent
with each other.
Instead of these two:
withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
staffgroup-staff-spacing
we could have these:
within-group-staff-staff-spacing
On 11/7/10 7:24 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
You guys are going to *hate* me for doing this, but I just
thought of a way to keep the StaffGrouper grobs consistent
with each other.
Instead of these two:
withingroup-staff-staff-spacing
staffgroup-staff-spacing
Keep
Okay, it looks like we're converging here...
Renaming proposals, round 4:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
-
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff
inter-staffnonstaff-relatedstaff
inter-loose-line nonstaff-nonstaff
On 11/6/10 7:17 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Okay, it looks like we're converging here...
Renaming proposals, round 4:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
-
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:20:08 -0700, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Renaming proposals, round 4:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
-
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff
inter-staffnonstaff-relatedstaff
Keith E OHara wrote:
I had imagined you would simultaneously change
staff-affinity (UP / DOWN / CENTER)
toreference-direction (UP / DOWN / CENTER)
so we can remember that this direction tells us which
staff is which between referencestaff and oppositestaff.
I think staff-affinity
Valentin Villenave wrote Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:10 AM
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
Renaming proposals, round 3:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAMETD's PREFERENCE
----
James wrote:
Unless we really explain this properly in the docs what
this term actually means, it really does put a lot of
people off (i.e. me).
There are two rather large doc patches already under
construction (and being discussed) to address this:
http://codereview.appspot.com/2758042/
2010/11/3 Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com
Actually, now I really like refstaff/oppstaff:
nonstaff-refstaff-spacing
nonstaff-nonstaff-spacing
nonstaff-oppstaff-spacing
Somehow I don't like it. It feels not descriptive enough imo, at least for
non-native english speakers: users would
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
Renaming proposals, round 3:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME TD's PREFERENCE
- ---
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff
Carl Sorensen wrote Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:00 PM
On 11/3/10 2:49 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Trevor wrote:
I wonder if affinity/nonaffinity are optimal. Are they
better than relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff?
Or target/opposite, reference/opposite,
On 11/3/10 2:49 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Note that item2 is not necessarily below item1; for
example, 'loose-staff-spacing will measure upwards from
the loose line if 'staff-affinity = #UP.
Trevor wrote:
I wonder if affinity/nonaffinity are optimal. Are they
better
(trying to make this as painless as possible...)
Renaming proposals, round 2:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
-
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff
inter-staffnonstaff-staff
inter-loose-line nonstaff-nonstaff
On 11/2/10 2:56 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
(trying to make this as painless as possible...)
Renaming proposals, round 2:
CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME
-
next-staff staff-staff
default-next-staff default-staff-staff
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-staffnonstaff-staff
I'd go with Carl's suggestion of
Le 01/11/2010 00:09, Carl Sorensen disait :
On 10/31/10 3:00 PM, Keith E OHarak-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:04:06 -0700,lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Friday, October 29, 2010 11:27 PM
I've thought about it, and I think I slightly favor the
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:04:06 -0700, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Friday, October 29, 2010 11:27 PM
I've thought about it, and I think I slightly favor the term
loose line over non-staff line
[...]
Also loose-staff-spacing sounds
too much like something that
On 10/31/10 3:00 PM, Keith E OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:04:06 -0700, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Friday, October 29, 2010 11:27 PM
I've thought about it, and I think I slightly favor the term
loose line over non-staff line
Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com writes:
Guys,
Here are my proposals for renaming the properties related to
Vertical spacing inside systems.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've thought about it, and I think I slightly favor the term
loose line over non-staff line; the word loose is
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Disagree. A loose line in typesetting is one with loose (as opposed
to tight) spacing.
Instead of loose, I'd prefer free, wild, uhm non-staff,
unattached and likely a number of other expressions. But loose is
really
Mark Polesky wrote Friday, October 29, 2010 11:27 PM
Here are my proposals for renaming the properties related to
Vertical spacing inside systems.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've thought about it, and I think I slightly favor the term
loose line over non-staff line; the word loose is
On 10/29/10 4:27 PM, Mark Polesky markpole...@yahoo.com wrote:
Guys,
Here are my proposals for renaming the properties related to
Vertical spacing inside systems.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've thought about it, and I think I slightly favor the term
loose line over non-staff
44 matches
Mail list logo
