Re: Double-underline markup

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

No, to have it work with most simple input like

\markup
  \underline
  \underline
  \underline
  \underline
  \underline
  "underlined"

-- 
David Kastrup