The weights for the same name do not match between the two dictionaries, that seems wrong.

When we look at the weights to do font matching to we look at the name or the numeric value?

The weights for the same name do not match between the two dictionaries, that seems wrong.

When we look at the weights to do font matching to we look at the name or the numeric value?
@tacaswell
That’s a good point, I noticed there are some existing inconsistencies as well (for example with 'heavy') between _weight_regexes and weight_dict.
In this PR, I focused on adding the missing weight names like extrabold, superbold, and ultrabold so that user input is consistent with what’s already supported internally.
I didn’t change any of the existing mappings to keep the scope limited. Let me know if you’d like me to also look into standardizing those mappings.

Ah, I missed the difference between ultrabold and ultrablack.

Please add all the obvious missing keys in this pass so we do this once rather than N times.

I'm going to also remind you have our LLM use policy (https://matplotlib.org/devdocs/devel/contribute.html#use-of-generative-ai).

Ah, I missed the difference between ultrabold and ultrablack.

Please add all the obvious missing keys in this pass so we do this once rather than N times.

I'm going to also remind you have our LLM use policy (https://matplotlib.org/devdocs/devel/contribute.html#use-of-generative-ai).

I have added the remaining obvious missing keys specially black category ones which includes ultrablack, superblack and extrablack.
And I totally understood the LLM use policy too.
Just to confirm, I would to like to ask about is there any need to add these semilight,extralight and demilight too here which are indermediate weights here which are not following clean and symmetrical values as compared to bold and black category weights.

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/fontconfig/-/blob/main/src/fcfreetype.c#L944-968

Should be treated as the authoritative list of weight names and their equivalence unless from looking at the git history we can sort out a good reason why the other names were previously excluded (or why they should be excluded now).

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/fontconfig/-/blob/main/src/fcfreetype.c#L944-968

Should be treated as the authoritative list of weight names and their equivalence unless from looking at the git history we can sort out a good reason why the other names were previously excluded (or why they should be excluded now).

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Would you like me to extend weight_dict further to include additional names like thin and extralight, or keep this change limited to the current additions as per the requirement.