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/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel