> ? @@@ > > returns Information::nomatch Well it would - the ? operator works on function names, not their operator equivalents. > > To use your method I must remove at least one hand from the keyboard, > scramble around to find > the mouse and then hit f1 and then return my hand to the keyboard in > order to get the documentation.
Hmm - that sounds like a lot of work! ? > > As for @@@ being explained multiple times in this newsgroup, maybe you > should wonder why > (a) it should have to be explained even once
Well I guess if everyone read and understood the entire documentation before posting on the newsgroup, 90% of the threads would vanish - but that would be true of just about all software support newsgroups.
> (b) why it should have to be explained multiple times.
Probably because people don't scan the entire back history of posts, before asking their question! > > Maybe it is not the most useful operation? Maybe it is not the most > euphonious operator?
I do think Mathematica could usefully exploit more extended characters as synonyms for operators like @@@ - just as they do for :> etc.
It is important to realise that anyone can understand any expression involving operators by using Hold and FullForm: