Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Thu, 30 Jan 92 19:28:07 GMT Posted-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 12:22:11 CST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] I agree with Kevin Hammond when he points out that the syntactic differences between legal and illegal LHSes are subtle. This appears to be yet another of a growing number of gotcha's associated with pattern-matching. A while back on the list, there was some discussion of the fact that overloaded functions can lead to bizarre interactions with pattern-matching, e.g. + can be overloaded so that it is not associative, or that - is not its inverse, etc. Someone made what I think is a reasonable assertion to the effect that pattern-matching (of the n+k variety) needed a re-think. Have the powers-that-be re-thought? Is n+k pattern-matching worth the confusion that it seems to entail? --- Emery Berger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "It is best to get out of any way Applied Research Laboratories not the way of wine." University of Texas at Austin -- Omar Khayyam
