For the record, @ already has a meaning in Rust, as a binary operator in patterns. The fact that this meaning has nothing to do with matrix multiplication is rather an argument against using @.
Also note that you seem to be using the term “dot product” wrong. It’s IMO rather unfortunate that python’s .dot method, as well as Rust’s ndarray use a method called “dot” for matrix multiplication (even though, for two vectors, the dot product [aka “scalar product”] can be the same as matrix multiplication, if the left one is made into a row-vector and the second into a column-vector).
Also note that I’ve personally never seen “@” being used for matrix multiplication before in any programming language that I knew (I obviously don’t know Python all that well).