On 05/03/2019 09:42, Jimmy Girardet wrote:
Indeed the "obscure" argument should be thrown away.
The `|` operator in sets seems to be evident for every one on this list but I would be curious to know how many people first got a TypeError doing set1 + set2 and then found set1 | set2 in the doc.
Every. Single. Time.
I don't use sets a lot (purely by happenstance rather than choice), and every time I do I have to go and look in the documentation because I expect the union operator to be '+'.
Except for math geek the `|` is always something obscure.
Two thirds of my degree is in maths, and '|' is still something I don't associate with sets. It would be unreasonable to expect '∩' and '∪' as the operators, but reasoning from '-' for set difference I always expect '+' and '*' as the union and intersection operators. Alas my hopes are always cruelly crushed :-)