Re: Double-underline markup

[Thomas Morley]

Am Sa., 19. Okt. 2019 um 12:42 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > 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".
>
> 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.


Cheers,
  Harm