On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:17:27PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
: I wrote:
: >2) We have A&B and the A B juxtaposition to mean $_ ~~ A && $_ ~~ B
: >   which is an intersection (sub)type of A and B.
: Is the A&B form a legal alternative for the juxtaposition?

Not in a signature.  It's ambiguous with A &B where &B is declaring a
routine type that returns A.  Might be made to work in parens someday.
But I'm still somewhat set against the notion of using logical ops to
do set theory.  (Even if you put parens around them.)


Reply via email to