Angle brackets

[davidfarmer]

Inner products are usually written with angle brackets. It looks sort of like this:
<u,v>
except that the delimiters are not angled as sharply. In TeX it is written
\langle u,v\rangle

You might think that AsciiMath would just use the less-than and greater-than
signs, but they can't because of their parsing rules. They offer two options:
shown here:

<<u,v>> or (:u,v:)

I don't like either of those.

If we insist that the less-than sign, when used as a relation,
have spaces around it, then we are free to let people use a more natural
input for inner product.

There are various other special uses of < and > that need to be taken
into account:
<=, >=, =>, <=>, ->, more

Does this seem workable?

[ymittal]

Ah, interesting find. I'd argue that more people use or might prefer no spacing around relational operators (2>3). Inner products are used less frequently than relations, so I think we should look into other ways of supporting inner productions.

I also don't like the Asciimath options. However, I do think that <<u, v>> is a minor yet justifiable inconvenience. What do you think?

[davidfarmer]

Space around equals is official for Python, so that is some precedent. How about space around relations is highly recommended, but if you put no space *on both sides* then that will work. Then we can make the inner product work by insisting that the spacing be appropriately asymmetric, as in: xxxx <xx,x> xxxx

…

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019, Yash Mittal wrote: Ah, interesting find. I'd argue that more people use or might prefer no spacing around relational operators (2>3). Inner products are used less frequently than relations, so I think we should look into other ways of supporting inner productions. I also don't like the Asciimath options. However, I do think that <<u, v>> is a minor yet justifiable inconvenience. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.[AABTULAQTJ7LSZUBCWOYEXLPRS65FANCNFSM4HHED2DQ.gif]