Duplicate code name 'flourescent'

The duplicate 'flourescent' (sic) define triggers warnings (see IconFontCppHeaders/issues/27). This is a similar issue to #1082. https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/f7bd4f25f3764883717c09a1fd867f560c9a9581/font/MaterialIcons-Regular.codepoints#L818-L820

At the font level, we have a single glyph (wb_iridescent) that supports those glyph names via ligation as well as its own. It supports the codepoints. F00D, E436 It does not support EC31

@rsheeter is the font correct? Should your codepoint registry change?

This is still an issue and it appears it is not isolated to just the codepoints. I have inspected the included font file (https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/f7bd4f25f3764883717c09a1fd867f560c9a9581/font/MaterialIcons-Regular.ttf) and there actually appears to be two identical glyphs for codepoints EC31 and F00D and ligatures for both 'fluorescent' and 'flourescent' (sic) respectively.

On Google Fonts, the correctly spelt version exists (https://fonts.google.com/icons?selected=Material+Icons:fluorescent) but not the typoed version (https://fonts.google.com/icons?selected=Material+Icons:flourescent). If you follow the working link on Google fonts it lists the codepoint for 'fluorescent' as EC31.

So, it appears that version on line 820 is correct and 818 and 819 are both wrong. Alternatively you could argue they are all wrong and it should be "fluorescent f00d" and in which case the font, codepoints file and Google Fonts are all somewhat inaccurate.

It is also worth noting that similar issues exist in the other variants of this font but not consistently. For example, in MaterialIconsOutlined-Regular there is just one occurrence of each spelling but both are mapped to F00D : https://github.com/google/material-design-icons/blob/f7bd4f25f3764883717c09a1fd867f560c9a9581/font/MaterialIconsOutlined-Regular.codepoints#L807-L808

Fundamentally, there is one glyph in the font. A bunch of names work (via ligature code) to point at that glyph. fluorescent, flourescent (sic), wb_iridescent

Because it was once misnamed, Google still supports the “bad” mis-spelled name in the font and by the API. They try to avoid ever dropping a name so that old code will work in the future.

But they don’t go out of their way advertise that “bad” name on the website, even though it works.