Unicode operators

[Bent Rasmussen]

Not quite

http://blogs.msdn.com/dsyme/archive/2008/09/01/the-f-operators-and-basic-functions.aspx

|> is pipelining
>> is function composition

- Bent

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:ge3a2o$2i0k$2 at digitalmars.com...
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Bent Rasmussen
>> <IncredibleShrinkingSphere at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> As an example: what domain does not include boolean expressions? And how
>>> many domains include vector and matrix operations? Quite many.
>>
>>> It would be a massive boost for readability in those domains (and in all
>>> domains, with boolean expressions).
>>
>> I don't know about you, but to me 'and' and 'or' make for much more
>> readable boolean expressions than the standard mathematical symbols ^
>> and v.  Heck, && and || are more readable to me than the math symbols.
>
> Hm, in my experimental emacs shenanigans I had && displayed as a wedge and 
> || displayed as a vee and heck do they look good.
>
>>> The problem is not the operators themselves; a language does not loose
>>> anything by extension, it is how exactly to best arrive at the goal of
>>> having the code look nice and readable with those operators.
>>>
>>> - Bent
>>>
>>> Hm, anyone fancy the |> operator?
>>
>> What would that mean?
>
> Ironic smile with eyes closed.
>
>
> Andrei