Ligature request: ?.( and ?.[
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Clojure
- Stars
- 82k
- Forks
- 3.2k
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
TypeScript and ECMAScript have new optional access operators. They look like so:
obj?.id - optional property access
obj?.[expr] - optional element access
func?.(arg) - optional call
See: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining
?.[ and ?.( were chosen as the optional element access and optional call operators respectively because using ?[ and ?( would have led to parsing difficulties for code like so:
obj?[expr].filter(fun):0;
func?(x - 2) + 3 :1
The problem, however, is that these don't look as nice as ?[ or ?(. A ligature could make it look better. I request that ligatures be added to hide the . or otherwise just blend the characters into a better-looking symbol.
Either way, thank you for making a great font!
Related: #215
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the optional-chaining examples and the linked TC39 proposal, then read related issue #215 for prior context. The payload names no source files or tests, so locating the font's ligature definitions is part of the initial investigation. Done means the requested optional element access and optional call sequences render as intentional blended ligatures.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- typescript
- Domain
- design
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100