> I would really welcome feedback on this proposal. Have you encountered
> situations in which pattern guards would be useful? Can you think of ways
> in which they might be harmful, or in which their semantics is non-obvious?
> Are there ways in which the proposal could be improved? And so on.
On first reading, I don't have any suggestions, but I fully agree that
the mentioned clunky function definitions are a nuisance and occur
often. The proposed syntax may look a bit strange in the beginning,
but I find the upward compatibility and the simple changes to the
grammar very attractive.
Manuel
