• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 day ago

      The symbol they defined out is not the equals symbol but rather U+2550, so the for loop is fine.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        01 day ago

        The #define = line would mean the = would be effectively removed, rendering the for a syntax error. That is, assuming it is an equals sign they’ve redefined, and not similar looking character.

        • lime!
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          that’s not a =, it’s a ═ (U+2550 BOX DRAWINGS DOUBLE HORIZONTAL). you can tell because == doesn’t connect but ══ does.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 day ago

            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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 day ago

          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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    531 day ago

    Oooh, that is tempting. The main pain would be center justifying the code. Perhaps if it was left justified…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    81 day ago

    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