Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props

[Keith E OHara]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:20:08 -0700, <address@hidden> 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