At 15:17 -0500 2/11/98, Travis Griggs wrote:
>David N. Smith wrote:
>
>> One thing that has always bugged me is the notation x at y. X is not AT y.
>> We'd need another notation for forming vectors and the only thing that
>> comes to mind offhand is -> which is as bad, but at least it looks like a
>> vector, sort of. Binary creation methods:
>>
>>    2 -> 3
>>    2 -> 3 -> 4
>
>I have never fully understood the use of @ either. I've always figured it had
>some historical significance or was pulled out of some domain I wasn't
>familiar
>with. I would much rather use the comma to build points from numbers. That's
>what I as a highschool student was familiar with. Is this (e.g. 2,3) not the
>common lay representation of a 2D point?
>

Good point!  :-)

Dave

_______________________________
David N. Smith
IBM T J Watson Research Center
Hawthorne, NY
_______________________________
Any opinions or recommendations
herein are those of the author
and not of his employer.