> 1) It seems to me it would be reasonable to change the meaning of
> the glyph-name property for NoteHead grobs such that it *always*
> (as long as we use the default stencil routines) carries the
> actual glyph name in the font. I'm aware that this might
> potentially break user code, but in its current state, the
> glyph-name property for NoteHeads is probably not terribly
> useful, and its meaning contradicts the explanation in the
> internals reference. ("The glyph name within the font. In the
> context of (span) bar lines, glyph-name represents a processed
> form of glyph, where decisions about line breaking, etc., are
> already taken.")
Agreed. Please file an issue. :-)
Werner
