-----"Richard Fateman" wrote: -----
>I think it would be much more important to
>have what is essentially a type-checking functionality
>that works, versus a function that attempts to solve an
>undecidable problem using methods that are poorly
>defined.
>
>You can have both, but they shouldn't be
>the same name.
OK. How does typeof( , real) differ from featurep( , real)?
What is a rough specification for typeof( , real)? What is
the advantage to having two functions that try to do the
same thing? Sure, featurep( , real) must be a satisficing
function. So it goes.
Barton