Unicode operators

[KennyTM~]

Bent Rasmussen wrote:
> 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 
> 

I thought |> is a ket vector in quantum mechanics.

<ϕ|A|ψ> := ∫ ϕ(x)* A ψ(x) dx