On 2019-10-19 4:51 am, Thomas Morley wrote:
Am Sa., 19. Okt. 2019 um 13:35 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <[email protected]>:
Thomas Morley <[email protected]> writes:
> 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"
Ok, understood. I'll give it a try...
Something to consider is how multiple \underlines would ideally stack.
%%%%
\version "2.19.83"
\markup \column {
\line { \italic "Inner-most, bottom-most:" }
\line { Lorem \override #'(offset . 3) \underline \line {
ipsum \override #'(offset . 6) \underline dolor sit } amet }
\line { \italic "Inner-most, top-most:" }
\line { Lorem \override #'(offset . 6) \underline \line {
ipsum \override #'(offset . 3) \underline dolor sit } amet }
}
%%%%
I could see potential rationale for either approach depending on what
the underlining is trying to convey. As such, would it make more sense
to simply try to solve the problem of \underlines growing horizontally
and leave the vertical positioning to be explicitly specified by the
user?
On a related note, though, some folks might *want* nested \underlines to
expand (or shrink) horizontally:
%%%%
\version "2.19.83"
\markup {
\pad-x #1
\override #'(offset . 9) \underline \pad-x #-0.5
\override #'(offset . 6) \underline \pad-x #-0.5
\override #'(offset . 3) \underline Triple
}
%%%%
-- Aaron Hill_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
