question: how much interest is there in coding ligatures a la Hasklig for SCP?

[pauldhunt]

I guess this is an invitation for +1’s, even though I generally dislike them. GitHub should have a polling feature, hmmmmm...

Hasklig

Also, if you have any insights about what works and what doesn’t in terms of coding ligatures, please post here.

[tommythorn]

+1 That would be so awesome! I would REALLY appreciate this. EDIT: Hasklig support in particular, not just ligatures in general.

[XenHat]

Very much so. I did not know what this was, I searched, found it and fell in love. +1 for Hasklig-style ligatures.
P.S. how did I survive coding without this until now?

[artemgordinskiy]

My primary IDE doesn't support these at the time, but in hopes that it will — +1 😄

[mtelesha]

This would be great also for me. Thank you in advance. +1

[artcs]

I don't like the idea, because in a monospace font I prefer to see exactly what I type. Especially if you use the font for documentation. So my vote is to keep a saparate Hasklig fork for those who really want to use it.

[fitojb]

I’d also rather keep those decorations off the official coding fonts… Maybe shipping them in separate “Alt” fonts?

+1 if there is a switch for this feature or another font file is provided.

[ldmldmldm]

@artcs
Just to be clear, all pauldhunt is asking is if we want extra characters included in the official font. The automatic substitution of => to ⇒ is not a feature of the font, rather is requires a plugin for your text editor.

So I don't see why the inclusion of some extra ligatures in the font will be a concern (except for maybe size) as you don't have to ever actually use them and they are not substituted into your code by default.

[artcs]

@ldmldmldm
You can add any glyph you want of course. It just shouldn`t be a default ligature feature in the font.

[ldmldmldm]

@artcs
Well arguably it's a font designed for source code, so it kinda makes sense for it to posses programming relevant ligatures.

Maybe I miss understand the difference between ligatures and glyphs, but from my understanding '&' is a ligature for 'and', yet you are not forced to use either one, '&' is just another glyph right?

Or is ampersand a unique example (if it is more than just an extra glyph then I could understand having a version with and a version without)?

[ruedigerha]

I'd love to see these ligatures, too 👍.

[pauldhunt]

what i’d like feedback on is which ligatures would be most useful. for those of you that are interested, if you could perhaps make a ranked list that would be enlightening to me. thanks.

[ruedigerha]

For me, a useful "very basic" set would be: /= == ++ :: -> => && ||
Very close after that: <- >> >>= (<< and =<< might be placed here, too, otherwise it might look strange to have ligatures for one "direction" but not the other if both are used in a piece of code, I personally just don't need them that often)
Next up: <> <$> <+> <*>

I'll leave it to others to be greedy and request more :).

[tommythorn]

That's a good starting point, but certainly <- is in the critical list as it's essential syntax for monad compressions (do x <- f y; ...). (OT: but the /= looks rather ugly in Hasklig).