Re: Double-underline markup

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Fr., 18. Okt. 2019 um 19:21 Uhr schrieb Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>:
>>
>> 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".

-- 
David Kastrup