Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > Am Fr., 18. Okt. 2019 um 19:21 Uhr schrieb Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu>: >> >> 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". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
