Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > Am Sa., 19. Okt. 2019 um 12:42 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >> >> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: >> >> > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >> Am Fr., 18. Okt. 2019 um 19:21 Uhr schrieb Carl Sorensen >> >> <c_soren...@byu.edu>: >> >>> >> >>> Why not add it to lilypond proper? I think that we would want to be >> >>> careful about property names (perhaps with an underline-details >> >>> property to minimize namespace pollution), but I think it would make >> >>> a great addition to Lilypond. >> >> >> >> \underline-h is backwards compatible with builtin \underline, >> >> nevertheless I hesitated to put up a patch, exactly because of that >> >> namespace pollution: >> >> underline-h introduces two additional properties (gap and amount). >> >> I see no problem with "gap", it's an already established and >> >> documented property, so why not use it? >> >> Though, "amount" would be new. Ofcourse one could replace it with >> >> "count" or even something else. Alas the main motivation to introduce >> >> it at all was the backwards compatibilty. >> >> It would be more naturally to have "amount" a simple additional >> >> argument to underline-h and loose backwards compatibilty. >> >> >> >> So I see two possibilties: >> >> >> >> (1) replace builtin-underline with the new code and condone a little >> >> namespace pollution. >> >> Carl: I don't understand your details-suggestion, could you >> >> explain more detailed? >> >> >> >> (2) implement a multiple-underline-markup-command (with an >> >> "amount"-argument) and let underline be derived from it as a special >> >> case. >> >> >> >> Opinions? >> > >> > "amount" sounds like something you'd use for a floating-point measure as >> > opposed to "count" you'd use for, well, countable items. I rather >> > dislike that name as it is so very unspecific. It would even match some >> > criterion like "thickness". >> >> Frankly, I think the most satisfactory course would be to let have >> \underline some default padding/outline action that will make nested >> applications of \underline just work according to naive expectations. >> >> It would likely make for sensible bounding boxes/outlines with regard to >> cropping and boxing, and it will provide a working option for people not >> investing any thought into it. And things like underlining with several >> colors for reflecting, say, presence in different editions would also >> work unproblematically. > > Iiuc, you recommend to fix \underline to make it work with most simple > input like: > > \markup { > \override #'(offset . 12) \underline > \override #'(offset . 10) \underline > \override #'(offset . 8) \underline > \override #'(offset . 6) \underline > \override #'(offset . 4) \underline > "underlined" > } > > I'll have a look.
No, to have it work with most simple input like \markup \underline \underline \underline \underline \underline "underlined" -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user