Re: @Math package

[Jeff Kingston]

> >     60    Binary operators: "+", "-", "+-", "-+", setminus
> >     60    Binary operators: bin, all others
> 
> Is it intentional that both have 60 here?

Yes.  The idea being that 60 is the usual precedence for binary
operators, with a few exceptions.  But if you think this could
be a problem, let me know.

> (That said, I'm wondering if `non' is very useful, and I don't
> find its name very descriptive.)

I use it all the time in cases like:

    The transitivity of the address@hidden { non <= }' relation...

Without "non" you have to rack your brains for the name of the
<= character.  We might as well stick with the @Eq name now.

> [The "not" symbol has] the same definition as in `eq'.  What makes
> you think it "won't work"?

In @Eq it was applied to parameterless objects.  In @Math the
equivalent definitions have left and right parameters.

> Besides, overlapping a slash with any kind of relational
> symbol is probably questionable, typographically-wise.

Agreed, but you often see it, and it does look good in some cases.

Jeff