Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm using the ulem for strikethrough, but need two formats of strikethrough. I'm currently using \dout{text} which looks good, but the second\xout{text} makes the base text a little too unreadable.

I'm looking for a clean double-strikethrough... the closest I've gotten is:

\newcommand\dout{\bgroup \markoverwith{\rule[0.2ex]{0.1pt}{0.4pt}\rule[0.8ex]{0.1pt}{0.4pt}}\ULon}

but this creates a slight hatching effect. (It's good enough, but I figured I'd see if any of ye clever folk had a cleaner solution.)

example

share|improve this question
    
Just a note that when I use the above \dout command, it doesn't work in captions, and it looks a bit faded compared to \sout (rule weight doesn't quite help). –  badroit Oct 2 '10 at 23:46

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

This is modified from the double underline macro of ulem (note that \MakeRobust is also defined by that package):

\def\dout{\bgroup
 \markoverwith{\lower-0.2ex\hbox
 {\kern-.03em\vbox{\hrule width.2em\kern0.45ex\hrule}\kern-.03em}}%
 \ULon}
\MakeRobust\dout

and seems to work quite well:

example

share|improve this answer
    
Works a treat, thanks! A small problem in that it doesn't work in captions ! Undefined control sequence... \markoverwith ...ULC@box } \else \def \UL@leadtype ... and then ! Tex capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack = 5000]. \UL@on 1->\leavevmode ... but not a problem for my case. –  badroit Oct 3 '10 at 0:45
    
That (and a scaling problem) should be fixed now. –  Caramdir Oct 3 '10 at 0:48
    
Hmmm... addition of \UL@setULdepth gives me an Undefined control sequence. for every use of \dout (inside or outside captions). \MakeRobust seems fine. Is \UL also in that package? –  badroit Oct 3 '10 at 0:55
    
\UL@setULdepth is also from the package. Maybe you forgot the \makeatletter? Actually, that command was just a copy&paste error any you can remove it. –  Caramdir Oct 3 '10 at 1:32
    
Perfect, thank you! –  badroit Oct 3 '10 at 1:43

More an observation, then an answer, but too long for a comment: The effect dependens on the pdf viewer:

This is Evince (300%, 400%): evince 300 evince 400

It looks better in Acrobat (300%, 400%) acrobat 300 acrobat 400

At least until you zoom in really close (1600%):

acrobat 1600

How does it look when printed?

share|improve this answer
    
Good point. Was using SumatraPDF which looks similar to Evince above. It does look better on Acrobat. Printed, both look solid... though Acrobat a little more so (in fact a little too solid, making the text a little unreadable). –  badroit Oct 3 '10 at 0:41

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.