Re: Double-underline markup

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Sa., 19. Okt. 2019 um 13:35 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>
>> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> 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...

I mean, I might well be too naive about this.  If the underline is
occuring in a fixed position with regard to the baseline, there are only
a few obvious avenues to have multiple underlines work:

a) change the baseline.  That's not really acceptable when mixing
underlined and non-underlined text
b) change a property (akin to offset but probably unique to \underline
to avoid unexpected interactions) for the sake of additional
underline calls.  That would result in the _innermost_ \underline call
ending up lowest.
c) somehow affect bounding box/outline in a manner that can be
interpreted for moving the whole next underline to a different position
while retaining the baseline.  That's sort of the handwavy "do magic"
option that may or may not be workable at all.

-- 
David Kastrup