Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props

[Trevor Daniels]

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-staff        nonstaff-staff

I'd go with Carl's suggestion of nonstaff-affinity
here.  But is this really strictly top-down directional,
or does this apply even when the nonstaff is below the
staff?  (The usual placement for lyrics is below the 
staff to which they have an affinity, and there is no
staff-nonstaff.)

I wonder if affinity/nonaffinity are optimal.
Are they better than relatedstaff/unrelatedstaff?

> inter-loose-line   nonstaff-nonstaff
> non-affinity       nonstaff-nonaffinity
>
> between-staff      (see below)
> after-last-staff   staffgroup-staff
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Notes:
>
> 1) "nonstaff" beat out "loose" by a large margin.
>   Sorry Carl!  (:
>
> 2) all the ideas for "between-staff" so far:
>   * names consistent with the item1-item2 format
>     a) groupstaff-groupstaff       (Trevor)
>     b) groupedstaff-groupedstaff   (Trevor)
>     c) grouped-staff-staff         (Mark)
>
>   * shorter names
>     d) inside-staffgroup           (Mark)
>     e) grouped-staff               (Carl)
>     f) grouped-staves              (Carl)
>
> Should we vote on this?  I'd vote for either c or f.  Here
> are some of my observations.

I think (c) could easily be interpreted to mean
groupedstaff-ungroupedstaff, since ungroupedstaff is 
the meaning of staff elsewhere.  So my preference is
for (b). It is long, but it's meaning is clearest,
especially as staffgroup exists to help dispel confusion.
I would also be happy with (a) (so no surprises there :)

If we go for the shorter names I prefer (f).
 
Trevor