[Guido van Rossum] > Um, the notation is '|' and '&', not 'or' and 'and', and those are > what I learned in school. Seems pretty conventional to me (Greg > Wilson actually tried this out on unsuspecting newbies and found that > while '+' worked okay, '*' did not -- read the PEP). The very usual notation for me has been the big `U' for union and the same, upside-down, for intersection, but even now that Python supports Unicode, these are not Python operators _yet_. :-) I never saw `|' nor `&' in literature, except `|' which means "such that" in set comprehensions, as Pythoneers would be tempted to say! On the other hand, for programmers, `|' and `&' are rather natural and easy. Eric has offered the idea of adding Cartesian product, and despite the usual notation is a tall thin `X', maybe it would be nice reserving `*' for that? It might not be explicit enough, and besides, there are other circumstances in Algebra, not so far from sets, when one might need many multiplicative operators, so `*' would easily get over-used. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4