[sly010]

Particularly the "parent-child" example feels like a non issue to me. You probably want to keep multiple versions of a glyph anyway to support things like undo, in which case explicit parent update is a requirement, not an annoyance. No reason you can't have both:

  g2 = updateGlyph(g1)
  f2 = updateFontInGlyph(f1, g2)

[TuringTest]

I think the crux is that any complex data structure f1 using glyphs would not need to be updated explicitly in an imperative program through a function like updateFontInGlyph; the runtime would do it as part of its semantics. Of course that's a double-edged sword, as you may get undesired side effects as well as the desired ones like this.

There are ways to achieve such "automatic updating" of items in a functional data structure, but you need to build them explicitly instead of relying on the runtime, which gives you more responsibility but also more control. The most direct approach as compared to imperative code would be to build the data structure on top of mutable state-based streams, though there are other possibilities like monotonic or immutable structures.

https://blog.waleedkhan.name/monotonicity/