Re: Double-underline markup

[Thomas Morley]

Am Fr., 18. Okt. 2019 um 19:21 Uhr schrieb Carl Sorensen <address@hidden>:
>
> 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?

Cheers,
  Harm