Obsolesence of <> (fwd)

[James Logajan]

Jonathan Gardner wrote:
[ Drawing from dot and cross products, comes to: ]
> So, taking the argument back to <> and !=: Maybe we should decide that <>
> means "greater than or less than" and != means "not equals to, or not ==".
> Therefore, you can ensure that noone tries to <> two complex numbers, but
> they certainly can != two complex numbers.

Nicely done! You've worked out how to have your cake and Edith too! Now if I
can only think of real world situation where <> does what you want and !=
doesn't (since the latter seems to include the former, but note vice versa).
Any case where an element of a ordered set can be NOT less than AND NOT
greater than another element and still be NOT EQUAL to it? I'm not a
mathematician, but do infinities have these properties?

> In the
> end, shouldn't we try to make what is written in the program as legible to
> mathematicians as possible? I mean, the closer the language stays to math,
> the more logical it will be.

Let us now do a Vulcan mind-meld. ;-)