Update && for ss03

[tonsky]

@tonsky you missed the <$, <$> and $> ligatures for the ss04 and shouldn't maybe the && with ss03 look more like than like ?

Originally posted by @Vampire in #617 (comment)

[jacob-greenfield]

IMHO I'm not a huge fan of a ligature for && with ss03, but on the other hand &= might be worth considering (bitwise AND and assignment, in many languages). I am interested to hear what other people think.

[tonsky]

I tried couple of times but can’t figure out how to make that connection look good. Sorry

[Vampire]

You don't like my suggestion? :-(

[tonsky]

They are quite apart to be joined like that. And extending the tails didn’t do the job

[Vampire]

Hm, I don't understand what you mean.
Many ligatures are much narrower than their single chars.
The ligature of <= is half the size of the single characters.
So where do you see the problem in joining them like I depicted?
I also don't think extending the tails would be looking decent.

[Vampire]

I'm just wondering.
I have it like that in my manipulated FiraCode since years and it is looking quite good imho.

[tonsky]

The strokes have direction and logic. In your version it looks like one glyph was just moved behind the other. Which is one way to do it, I just don’t like it.

Re: distance, these are pretty complex characters, so I feel that moving them close together will make them harder to read and will create more of a mess.

[tonsky]

I looked at what other fonts with an ampersand like that do. Some just remove one of the tails inside. Would that work?

[Vampire]

I don't know.
That looks strange, but it might just be so because of it being so big to look at.
I can only say that I work with the joined version I suggested for years and like it.
If you think it is not good and too hard to read, then not, that's ok.
I was just curious what your reason was, you are the font expert here. :-)