Re: Fix underline-markup to make multiple calls have nice output (issue 559150043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2019/10/21 11:13:17, dak wrote:
> 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.

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.

https://codereview.appspot.com/559150043/