Re: Fix underline-markup to make multiple calls have nice output (issue 559150043 by address@hidden)

[thomasmorley65]

On 2019/10/21 11:20:03, dak wrote:
> >
> > The combination
> >
> >     \markup \underline \overtie huh
> >
> > would likely be madly confusing if the \underline managed to shift
the
> \overtie
> > around.

> So maybe \underline should retain the previous meaning and setting of
offset and
> add an _additional_ underline-shift defaulting to 0 for the sake of
stacking?
> Then we'd not need a conversion rule at all, and the underline-shift
would not
> interact with over/undertie unless we wanted to.

If I understand correctly, then old "offset" determined the gap between
text-arg and the underline. You suggest to keep this behaviour. I.e. for
the gap between the text-arg and _first_ underline.
And a new underline-shift, starting at 0, but modified by multiple calls
of \underline for stacking additional underlines.
Right?
Though, which value should we take for the gap between multiple lines,
i.e. which value to modify underline-shift?
I see two possibilities:
a) Use the one provided by "offset". This has some logic, sure, but an
override for it would affect the gap between original text-arg _and_
between multiple additional underlines. As a user I'd want the
possibility to set these two differently.
Thus:
b) Introduce an additional property, determining the gap _between_
lines. Maybe even called "underline-offset" or the like.

Then we would have the following properties
((thickness 1) (offset 2) (underline-shift 0) (underline-offset 2))

A user-override for underline-shift would disturb things, though. Maybe
some words in the doc-string about it?


https://codereview.appspot.com/559150043/