Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props

[Carl Sorensen]

On 10/29/10 4:27 PM, "Mark Polesky" <address@hidden> 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 line"; the word "loose" is
> distinctive and much less likely to get tangled up with the
> word "staff" (in the user's head, that is).

I think I do too.  I couldn't come up with any better variable than
loose-line-spacing, so that's when I decided that calling them loose lines
might be the best.

> 
> On the other hand, "nonstaff-staff-spacing" may be more
> intuitive than "loose-staff-spacing".  But if we call the
> property "nonstaff-staff-spacing", I'd want to replace all
> references to "loose lines" with "non-staff lines" (or maybe
> "nonstaff lines", without the hyphen?).

I don't think it should be unhyphenated in the text; in the variable name
it's fine.

> 
> Lastly, one property resists the "item1-item2-spacing" name
> format: currently named 'between-staff-spacing, it controls
> the spacing between staves within a staffgroup.  I don't
> like the current name because it sounds like it controls the
> spacing between ungrouped staves too, but it doesn't.  I'm
> proposing 'inside-staffgroup-spacing, which is clearer (I
> think) but not consistent with the "item1-item2-spacing"
> format.

I'd be OK with inside-staffgroup-spacing, but I think I prefer
grouped-staff-spacing or grouped-staves-spacing.

> 
> Please share your thoughts about these proposals.  I want
> the prop names to be consistent and intuitive, and I'd like
> to come as close as possible to a general consensus.
> Hopefully this thread won't be as thorny as the last time:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-10/msg00070.html
> 
> If it helps, the current prop-names are explained in some
> detail in this (unfinished) patch:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/
> 
> Thanks!
> - Mark
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> Except for the 'inside-staffgroup property, the names of
> these properties follow the format "item1-item2-spacing".
> Note that item2 is not necessarily below item1; for example,
> 'loose-staff-spacing will measure upwards from the loose
> line if 'staff-affinity = #UP.
> 
> (I've omitted the "-spacing" suffix to save space.)
> 
> CURRENT NAME       PROPOSED NAME       ALTERNATE PROPOSAL
> ------------       -------------       ------------------
> next-staff         staff-staff
> default-next-staff default-staff-staff
> 

Note: The names below also don't match the standard, because the standard is
that item1-item2 applies with item1 on the top, and item2 on the bottom.
However, for loose items, the affinity controls where the spacing applies.
So I think calling it loose-* makes sense.
> inter-staff        loose-staff         [nonstaff-staff]
> inter-loose-line   loose-loose         [nonstaff-nonstaff]
> non-affinity       loose-nonaffinity   [nonstaff-nonaffinity]


> 
> between-staff      inside-staffgroup
                     grouped-staff
> after-last-staff   staffgroup-staff

Thanks,

Carl