You may be on to something important there. Well
spotted.
It sounds like Clive's main problem was elsewhere, but in any event that
-no- coding is something to be careful of. It just seems counter-intuitive
to me to have `constant' really mean "noconstant". And, it is easy to make
mistakes if you don't understand how the -no- coding works, e.g. use
`nocons' instead of `cons'. I just try to avoid it myself, by doing things
like Scott suggested, e.g. have the syntax statement say Nocons instead of
nocons.
