Oooh, that is tempting. The main pain would be center justifying the code. Perhaps if it was left justified…
Clearly we need self-centering support from editors.
Just one more reason to do your coding in Word.
My employer’s CI rejects extended ASCII characters :(
super minor but I always preferred to define fizzbuzz as modulo 3*5 to show adherence to the instructions in the readability of the code without having to think about why
Mmm I think they are missing == 0
This only half as bad as the emoji soup macros
You could do this in basic ASCII, with only three defines. replace "_ " with “{”, replace “_;” with “}”, and “_” with nothing. If your compiler processes macros in the correct order, it will become valid code. (You would use semicolons as the vertical lines)
This would musk to write, but is honestly really readable.
Have they
d out the equals symbol? I don’t think thatforloop is going to compile.The symbol they defined out is not the equals symbol but rather U+2550, so the for loop is fine.
why not? looks fine
The
line would mean the=would be effectively removed, rendering thefora syntax error. That is, assuming it is an equals sign they’ve redefined, and not similar looking character.that’s not a =, it’s a ═ (
U+2550 BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE HORIZONTAL). you can tell because == doesn’t connect but ══ does.Fair point, I wasn’t sure it was the equals, hence my initial question. Drawing boxes with the box drawing characters does make a lot more sense.
It looks like a different symbol of you were to compare the characters length in pixels
the equals and the horizontal double bars seem different to me.
