|
From: | Alexander Kobel |
Subject: | Re: names of vertical spacing dimensions |
Date: | Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:15:02 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100922 Thunderbird/3.1.4 |
On 2010-10-12 14:27, James wrote:
On 12/10/2010 12:54, David Kastrup wrote:James<address@hidden> writes:Why do we have 'top-system' but 'system-bottom' and not instead, 'bottom-system'?Because there is no system after the bottom?? I'll stop if I am really showing my ignorance (I am not a code developer), but from a user-point of view it would be much more 'logical' if the naming was split *consistently* into What you are changing (system, markup, title etc) and where you are changing.
That's what I meant when I wrote after-title-spacing and before-title-spacing (as is) are good names IMHO. /But:/ The more consistent naming scheme is the new one; on this I agree with Mark, Carl, David, and some of the others.
All these variables describe vertical spacing, which means there is always a Foo above the space and a Baz below the space. Thus, foo-baz-space sounds fine, doesn't it? (This logic implies system-bottom-spacing, of course.) Of course, the user usually thinks of your three-divisioned scheme titling/headers, music, markups, but Lily's state of the art is that titling and top-level markups are the same. If we were to introduce this distinction as a separate, well, "object-taking-vertical-top-level-space" category, we'd have even more meaningful and understandable names; but this looks like it's /far/ out of the scope of this patch and discussion.
And as to "where you are changing": The settings just do not allow controlling the spacing independent of the subsequent element. That'd look like - similar to the (horizontal) space-alists for some grobs - the following, if I understand you correctly:
after-staff-spacing = #'((Staff . ((space . 5) (stretchability 7))) (Lyrics . ((minimum-distance . 7))) (Markup . ((padding . 3)))(Titling . ((space . 8) (stretchability 20) (minimum-distance . 8) (padding . 5)))) ... and so on. This looks theoretically possible, but to me it does not look better than the current approach. Rather worse: what if you want to change just a single entry? Rewrite the whole thing?
I see your point, but do you think it's worth it before GLISS? Cheers, Alexander
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |