Re: Successor patterns in bindings and n+k patterns

[smk]

Another strange thing about n+k patterns.

Its definition uses >= , but >= is not part of the class Num.
Does that mean that n+k patterns have to be instances of class Real?

One could leave it class Num, if the translation were expressed
in terms of "signum" rather than ">=".

Question:
Can one misuse the feature of n+k-patterns to simulate
n*k+k' patterns?  [I am talking about weird user-defined
instances of Num.]

Stefan Kahrs