??

[Tom Pennello]

> From uunet!apple.com!jimt Mon Oct 22 18:39:11 1990
> From: James W. Thomas <uunet!apple.com!jimt>
> To: tomametaware.com
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the problem in the NCEG draft document regarding
> the ?? relational operator.  Do you have a suggestion for an "available"
> character that could represent "unordered" in relational operators?
> 
> -Jim
> 
Yes.  Use <>, as in x <> y, pronounced "x box y" if you want a short
pronunciation for <>.  NCEG can either introduce the new lexical element
<> as a single token, which will mean x < > y won't be acceptable,
or can introduce it as the two tokens < followed by >.  Either way
introduces no problem with respect to the ANSI standard.

The only objectors might be Pascal programmers.  They are used to <>
meaning "not equal".  Perhaps then we should choose x >< y.  In fact
I like that!  It looks weird enough it easily conveys "not comparable to",
but what should be the monosyllabic description?
Perhaps "ouch".  Perhaps "never" (even though 2 syllables)
as in "x never y" -- i.e., x and y are never comparable.

Sounds like >< is the best choice, with <> a close second.
I'd avoid using a new character.