On 2019/10/21 11:02:12, thomasmorley651 wrote:
On 2019/10/21 10:31:32, dak wrote:
> On 2019/10/21 09:52:41, thomasmorley651 wrote:
> > Does this one need a convert-rule?
> >
> > If so, I'd need some help. My python-skill is more or less zero.
>
> I've just taken some look. It would appear that the only other
markup
commands
> using the "offset" property are the \tie/\overtie\undertie family.
Collision
> avoidance would appear to make it somewhat desirable to let them
share in the
> scheme (in which case sticking with "offset" rather than
"underline-offset"
> would appear to make sense) but this would seem to make the
"innermost has
> largest offset" principle even weirder.
Well, there was no collision avoidance implemented for previous
\underline and
\undertie, so the situation is not worse than before.
In the light of your findings we could even keep "offset" (saving the
convert-rule), imho. I don't think it gets much weirder than with
nested/overlapping \underlines anyway.
What do you think?
The combination
\markup \underline \overtie huh
would likely be madly confusing if the \underline managed to shift the
\overtie around.
https://codereview.appspot.com/559150043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
