XComment1: #############################################################
XComment2: # uk.ac.glasgow.cs has changed to uk.ac.glasgow.dcs #
XComment3: # If this address does not work please ask your mail #
XComment4: # administrator to update your NRS & mailer tables. #
XComment5: #############################################################
There's been an interesting debate about n+k patterns on this list.
In this message I am only addressing the question of what changes, if
any, should be made to the V1.1 Report (which I am trying to fix in the
light of people's observations).
The only issue seems to me to be this one, raised by Brian:
 o Equality should be symmetric and transitive. Otherwise you're going
 to start wondering whether f 0 = 1; f n = n * f (n1) is interpre
 ted
 as f n = if n==0 then 1 else n * f (n1)
 or f n = if 0==n then 1 else n * f (n1)

 This is good example. Should the Report state how implementations are to
 translate matching of constant patterns? Or should it state that
 implementations are free to assume symmetry here?
Actually, the Report *does* state how implemenatations are to translate
constant patterns (page 22). But on looking at it, I see that
k patterns are translated to (k == e)
but
n+k patterns are translated to (e >= k) and (e  k)
While this is unambiguous, it seems rather inconsistent. I suggest
changing the translation of equality to (e == k).
Only change required is page 22, line 11.
Any objections? Any other V1.1 issues?
Simon