On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:35, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think an operator form is sufficiently valuable when the
> functionality is available and clear enough already.

I'm not sure; if set multiplication is highly unambiguous (i.e. the
Cartesian product is the only logical outcome, and there is not some
other common multiplication-like operation on sets), than it seems to
me that supporting the multiplication operator for the Cartesian
product of sets would be sensible.

Cheers,

Dirkjan