On Mar 30, 6:35 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > En Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:11:33 -0300, hdante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > > BTW, my opinion is that it's already time that programmer editors > > have input methods advanced enough for generating this: > > > if x ≠ 0: > > ∀y ∈ s: > > if y ≥ 0: f1(y) > > else: f2(y) > > Fine if you have the right keyboard... Try to write APL with a standard > keyboard :) > There was a version of APL for the Sinclair QL which replaced the standard APL symbols with keywords. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
- Re: Why prefer != over &... Gabriel Genellina
- Re: Why prefer != over &... Jorge Vargas
- Re: Why prefer != over &... Gabriel Genellina
- Re: Why prefer != over &... Konstantin Veretennicov
- Re: Why prefer != over &... Torsten Bronger
- Re: Why prefer != over &... Ben Finney
- Re: Why prefer != over &... Steve Holden
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for Pytho... hdante
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for P... Torsten Bronger
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for Pytho... MRAB
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for P... Gabriel Genellina
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for P... John J. Lee
- Re: Why prefer != over <> f... Tim Roberts
- Re: Why prefer != over <&... D'Arcy J.M. Cain
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for P... MRAB
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for Python 3.... Lie
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for Python 3.0? Colin J. Williams
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for Python 3.0? Hendrik van Rooyen
- Re: Why prefer != over <> for Python 3.0? Bob Martin