I love the snark in that PEP: > APL apparently used +.× , which by combining a multi-character token, confusing attribute-access-like . syntax, and a unicode c

I love the snark in that PEP: > APL apparently used +.× , which by combining a multi-character token, confusing attribute-access-like . syntax, and a unicode character, ranks somewhere below U+2603 SNOWMAN on our candidate list. and then later, one of the reasons @ is better than the alternatives: > Whatever, we have to pick something.