Re: SMuFL Name mapping update, 13 October: Accordionist input needed

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Regarding "Ped" vs. "Ped.": What exactly do you mean with the
>> sentence I wonder if there's any way to map a SMuFL base name to a
>> sequence of Emmentaler glyphs.
> 
> Emmentaler has a "Ped" glyph and a "." glyph, but no "Ped." glyph.
> 
> SMuFL has a "." glyph and a "Ped." glyph; "Ped" is merely a
> recommended stylistic alternate of "Ped.".
> 
> It would be nice for the sake of compatibility if, when programs
> asked for SMuFL's default "Ped." glyph (which I imagine they'd do
> often), it got Emmentaler's "Ped" followed by "." rather than simply
> "Ped".  I just don't know if that can be done painlessly.

Well, we could add a 'Ped.' glyph for compatibility, even if it stays
unused by LilyPond.  A possible solution would be to modify the
`gen-emmentaler.fontforge.py` script, creating a composite glyph with
the two elements 'Ped' and '.'.  I'm quite sure that this is possible,
however, FontForge's documentation doesn't help much.  It would be
necessary to contact the maintainers for assistance in writing the
proper Python code.

Another possibility is to replace the 'Ped' glyph with 'Ped.' in the
METAFONT sources, also adjusting `sustain-pedal.cc`.  On the glyph
level, this would be backward incompatible, however, LilyPond itself
only uses 'Ped.' in `pedalSustainStrings` and friends, so the impact
might be very low and thus justified.


    Werner