Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props

[Carl Sorensen]

On 11/3/10 2:49 PM, "Mark Polesky" <address@hidden> 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 than relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff?
> 
> Or target/opposite, reference/opposite, refstaff/oppstaff?
> 
> Actually, now I really like refstaff/oppstaff:
>   nonstaff-refstaff-spacing
>   nonstaff-nonstaff-spacing
>   nonstaff-oppstaff-spacing

ref and opp are abbreviations and not good for non-native-english speakers.

nonstaff-associatedstaff-spacing
nonstaff-nonstaff-spacing
nonstaff-freestaff-spacing or nonstaff-isolatedstaff-spacing

Where one staff is associated with the nonstaff and the other staff is free?

Looking at a thesaurus, I have some more ideas:

nonstaff-relatedstaff  vs. nonstaff-unrelatedstaff
nonstaff-linkedstaff vs. nonstaff-separatestaff
nonstaff-attachedstaff vs. nonstaff-detachedstaff
nonstaff-affixedstaff vs. nonstaff-releasedstaff
nonstaff-alliedstaff vs. nonstaff-foreignstaff
nonstaff-alliedstaff vs. nonstaff-disjoinedstaff

 
>> So my preference is for [groupedstaff-groupedstaff].
> 
> Trevor, after some consideration, I'm afraid I'm not so much
> in favor of groupedstaff-groupedstaff (or it's shorter
> cousin).  They too strongly suggest the possibility of this:
> 
>   [last staff of group] - [first staff of next group]
> 
> Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> I just thought of a c': within-group-staff-staff.  Longer,
>> but might explain it more clearly.
> 
> It would be the longest, but I like the clarity.  How do you
> feel about
>   staffgrouped-staff-staff-spacing ?

If we're going with this idea, I'd prefer

  groupedstaff-staff-staff-spacing

since it's better english than staffgrouped IMO.

> 
> It's the same length as
>   within-group-staff-staff-spacing
> 
> but it has one less hyphen, which for some reason I consider
> an advantage.  Although I might prefer within-group anyway.
> Now, if we do use
>   within-group-staff-staff-spacing

Maybe it's withingroup-staff-staff-spacing.

This is an exception, so I'm not sure exactly how to best resolve it.

> 
> I thought we might as well shorten
>   staffgroup-staff-spacing
> 
> to
>   group-staff-spacing .
> 
> What do you think?

I prefer staffgroup-staff spacing, since it's a staffgroup object, not a
group object, that we're trying to space.

The length of the descriptor is not that important to me -- I don't type it
very much.  Having it be clear is more important than having it be short.

Thanks,

Carl


> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> 
> Renaming proposals, round 3:
> 
> CURRENT NAME       PROPOSED NAME
> ------------       -------------
> next-staff         staff-staff
> default-next-staff default-staff-staff
> 
> inter-staff        nonstaff-refstaff
> inter-loose-line   nonstaff-nonstaff
> non-affinity       nonstaff-oppstaff
> 
> between-staff      within-group-staff-staff
> after-last-staff   group-staff
> 
> 
>