Hmm, the text does look somewhat like Brainfuck, but Brainfuck doesn’t seem to use semicolons.
My question comes from the two semicolons on line 14 being pushed closer together. I assume the font has a ligature for when two semicolons are next to each other. Presumably, it’s some coding font, which would also use ligatures to turn e.g -> into → and things like that.
But yeah, you don’t usually include such ligatures into a font, unless there is a specific use-case for that. There could be a programming language that uses ;; to start a line comment, for example. But I’m really not sure, if I’ve ever seen that, hence my question. 🫠
Ah, good point. Does make me wonder how the font developers test the effect of certain ligatures, like did they actually have both Clojure comments and unconditional C loops in mind when they introduced this ligature…? I guess, it doesn’t really break anything, so could just introduce it and see if anyone complains.
Hmm, the text does look somewhat like Brainfuck, but Brainfuck doesn’t seem to use semicolons.
My question comes from the two semicolons on line 14 being pushed closer together. I assume the font has a ligature for when two semicolons are next to each other. Presumably, it’s some coding font, which would also use ligatures to turn e.g
->into→and things like that.But yeah, you don’t usually include such ligatures into a font, unless there is a specific use-case for that. There could be a programming language that uses
;;to start a line comment, for example. But I’m really not sure, if I’ve ever seen that, hence my question. 🫠Clojure for example
Aha! Seems to just be a convention to use multiple semicolons for full-line comments, but that’s still probably it then.
https://ostash.dev/posts/2021-02-19-clojure-code-comments/
Thanks! 🙂
That is interesting. They’re definitely closer together on line 14 than on line 7.
C and C++ use
for (;;) {}as an unconditional loop.Ah, good point. Does make me wonder how the font developers test the effect of certain ligatures, like did they actually have both Clojure comments and unconditional C loops in mind when they introduced this ligature…? I guess, it doesn’t really break anything, so could just introduce it and see if anyone complains.