People having their unique implementation of punctuation marks irks me...
People having their unique implementation of punctuation marks irks me...
It's one of many conventional symbols for OR, more common in the pure ASCII days due to a lack of ∧ , ∨ , ¬ et al.
Which rock have you lived under that you've never seen it used an OR before?
People imposing their limited experience of the wide world upon others would certainly irk some, but rest easy, I've not taken offence at your odd assumption of non existent universal convention.
EDIT: Backus uses the asymmetric overbarred "or" in 1959, but by 1963 the | we know and love has already taken its place (that ASCII standardisation didn't start until 1961 may have something to do with this?)
https://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/ALGOL/paper/Ba...
Some non-alphanumeric characters add brevity and have been more or less adopted by the mainstream, such as ~ being more ergonomic than approximately or approx. Comma, slash, semicolon; these are the ORs of written English and are already the minimal characters count.
I mildly like pipe as you use it but feel it is more confusing and distracting than anything else. A comma or slash would have not interrupted the reading of the sentence. Optimizing for the reader rather than the writer seems a good default position.
Edit: you replied elsewhere using pipe with parentheses or curly braces; very, very clear in those cases. Had you used that in your original, I would have had no confusion
> that can work for any app | browser | etc. on a network
That is an English clause, not a mathematical expression. You even have the abbreviated form of et cetera there.
> non existent universal convention
In English there is a convention for listing alternatives: commonly forward-slashes with no space between them, like 'this/that', or with commas and conjunctions, like 'this, or that'. Or make your life easy, and use some other collective noun such as 'platforms'.
> a lack of ∧ , ∨ , ¬ et al.
English convention dictates 'et al' (or et alia) be used to list authors or people, rather than inanimate objects. Or you could use a collective noun here, too: 'mathematical symbols'.