Such little imagination... You should learn from your forefathers. Quantity is no substitute for quality. ;)<p><a href="http://search.cpan.org/dist/perlsecret/lib/perlsecret.pod#SYNOPSIS" rel="nofollow">http://search.cpan.org/dist/perlsecret/lib/perlsecret.pod#SY...</a>
Meanwhile:<p><pre><code> Mathematica 10.0 for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
Copyright 1988-2014 Wolfram Research, Inc.
In[1]:= FullForm[x->y*z^w]
Out[1]//FullForm= Rule[x, Times[y, Power[z, w]]]
In[2]:= x\[UnionPlus]y\[RightTee]z
Out[2]= x ⊎ y ⊢ z
</code></pre>
There's no reason your programming language shouldn't be able to tell you what these things are called in English without an external reference.
I had a Microsoft support technician ask us to press the "flower button" in a powershell script. It took a while to work out he meant { and }.
This sums up what I dislike most about Scala (which is an even worse offender in this regard). A rule of thumb: if a 10-year-old wouldn't be able to intuitively read the operator, use words.
This seems like it could have been prime territory for a bit of surrealist/meta fiction, with gradually stranger descriptions of operators turning into a short story of some kind.
Normal single-character operators also have names:<p><a href="http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/A/ASCII.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/A/ASCII.html</a>
A select few operators (out of hundreds) for a single Haskell library: <a href="https://github.com/ekmett/lens/wiki/Operators" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/ekmett/lens/wiki/Operators</a><p>(For full disclosure, the lens library is infamous for this.)
Looks like quite a few of these were cribbed from the intercal character set[0]. Nice to see that living on.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/intercal-man/tonsila.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/intercal-man/tonsila.htm...</a>