> Incidentally, the above def of `sep' doesn't match Hughes' in an important
> way. Consider:
Aiee, I knew this was gonna backfire. No, my `sep' does not (and
wasn't intended to) have exactly the same semantics as Hughes' `sep'.
Also, please understand that Phil never proposed such a `sep'.
Likewise with the other combinators with the same name as Hughes'.
The purpose of using the same names was just to ease the transition,
not to eliminate it. Apologies to everyone for not making this
clear.
/Tommy
