Re: A proposal to restructure our top-level syntax

/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
|> | 5) Change the definition of p:pipe so that 'step' is optional, and if
|> |    omitted means the lexically inclosing p:pipeline.
|>
|> This seems orthogonal. And if we're goint to reopen discussion of
|> making step and/or port optional on p:pipe, I have a different
|> proposal :-)
|
| It's crucially _not_ orthogonal, it's necessary!

Ah, yes. I'd missed the significance of step 5.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/            | possible, but no simpler.