I have only seen the notation $f : A \rightarrow B$ used for discussing functions. Can this notation be used for relations that are not functions?
For example, $\tan : \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R$ appears to define a relation that is not left-total (for example $\frac \pi 2\in \mathbb R$ is not mapped to anything in codomain $\mathbb R$) and hence not a function. Would it be incorrect to express this relation, that is not a function, using this notation?
Edit: To borrow a great example from Arthur's answer below, consider the notation $\le\; : \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R$. This seems to me to unambiguously express a relation that, while left-total is certainly not functional (e.g. $(3, 3), (3, 4) \in \;\le$) and hence not a function. If it's unambiguous, surely this notation can be used to express this relation that is not a function...
I guess I could express my question more clearly as: is there anything in the expression $f:A\rightarrow B$ that asserts that $f$ is not merely a relation but specifically a function?
There is a category of relations having sets as objects and binary relations as arrows.
In that context the notation: $$R:A\to B$$ where $R\subseteq A\times B$, is fine.
In my view (somewhat coloured by categories) the expression $f:A\to B$ on its own is not enough to state that we are dealing with a function (or a relation).
I do recognize it as an arrow in a category and the context must make clear which category.
So my answer to your last question is: "no".