>>> Essentially, this option switches between the `show` and `glyphshow` >>> PostScript operators to access Emmentaler glyphs. The former is >>> considered the 'standard' method for accessing glyphs in a PS file >>> (according to the GS developers); however, it needs properly set up >>> encoding vectors (which can't exceed a size of 256 glyphs each). The >>> latter is slower, AFAIK, and apparently not as well supported with GS >>> (at least, we filed some bug reports, IIRC). >> >> Thanks, that helps. However, I still don't understand what impact on >> size this makes. Do the two result in different PDF primitives?
Yes. There is no equivalent to `glyphshow` in PDF. For some comments on that see, for example, https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698305#c10 https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695259 BTW, you get a bunch of LilyPond-related GhostScript bug reports if you search for 'lilypond' in both open and closed bugs in its tracker at https://bugs.ghostscript.com Some of them are quite interesting to read and point to potential deficiencies in LilyPond's font handling. Werner
