> ≠ is easier to understand than !=
I respectfully disagree with this claim.
It's conventional code notation that != is a Boolean test for (in)equality; that convention doesn't apply to ≠, which is overloaded in mathematics.
I respectfully disagree with this claim.
It's conventional code notation that != is a Boolean test for (in)equality; that convention doesn't apply to ≠, which is overloaded in mathematics.
But, taking your point, a ligature ≠ would be overloaded in representing != and ~= and /= and <> and becomes potentially very risky.
And if you go a bit beyond top 20, there's Haskell: /=