On 2019/10/21 10:31:32, dak wrote:
On 2019/10/21 09:52:41, thomasmorley651 wrote: > Does this one need a convert-rule? > > If so, I'd need some help. My python-skill is more or less zero.
I've just taken some look. It would appear that the only other markup
commands
using the "offset" property are the \tie/\overtie\undertie family.
Collision
avoidance would appear to make it somewhat desirable to let them share
in the
scheme (in which case sticking with "offset" rather than
"underline-offset"
would appear to make sense) but this would seem to make the "innermost
has
largest offset" principle even weirder.
Well, there was no collision avoidance implemented for previous \underline and \undertie, so the situation is not worse than before. In the light of your findings we could even keep "offset" (saving the convert-rule), imho. I don't think it gets much weirder than with nested/overlapping \underlines anyway. What do you think? https://codereview.appspot.com/559150043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
