Glyphs 2.0.1 (729)
acutecomb.loclPLK exists in the .glyphs file, as do c, o, n, s, z.
Attempted to generate the [consz]acute.loclPLK.
Found that the generated glyphs used acutecomb instead of acutecomb.loclPLK.
For example, cacute.loclPLK was made up of two components, /c and /acutecomb. The same thing happens with .sc glyphs; for example, generating cacute.loclPLK.sc creates a glyph with components /c.sc and /acutecomb instead of using /acutecomb.loclPLK.
I haven’t yet tested for other cases.
Related to that the .loclPLK glyphs and components/anchors, I noticed that when the anchor topright was set in /L that the component for caroncomb.alt.case in /Lacute.loclPLK did not show the anchor icon to allow selecting between “top” and “topright”; renaming anchor “topright” to “top_right” in /L caused the anchor icon to appear to select “top_right”. “topright” was set in /L by using Command-U (Glyph->Set Anchors).
The anchor in /caroncomb.alt.case was named “_top”.
The BIG question is whether Polish orthography really requires special treatment for their acutes. And my answer is: this is bullshit. I studied the Polish accents carefully, I checked many books, lettering, typefaces, I discussed this topic with many Polish type designers and the answer is:
There is nothing like special Polish acute. There is a bad acute or good acute. If the acute is well placed, with good proportions, weight, if it fits the style of the typeface, then one acute is perfect for Polish, Spanish, Czech or Icelandic.
All this buzz comes from one text by Adam Twardoch from 1997 (http://www.twardoch.com/download/polishhowto/kreska.html) and the text is simply not correct in many ways.
@filipdesigniq
Good point.
But the general mechanism has to work, so I fixed it.