Ron Garret  <rNOSPAMon@flownet.com> wrote:
+---------------
|  rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| > Ron Garret  <rNOSPAMon@flownet.com> wrote:
| > +---------------
| > | Use #+#:\; then.
| > +---------------
...
| > But as Kent has pointed out, all *three* of the above *might*
| > be faked out with infelicitous PUSHes to *FEATURES*,
| 
| How would you fake #+#:\; (or #+#:anything for that matter)?
+---------------

Oops! Right you are! #+#:\; should be as safe as #+(or) or #-(and).
And #-#:\; can also be used to do the same as #-(or) or #+(and).

But #+#:\; is no shorter than #+(or) -- how about #+#:- instead,
which is *almost* as short as #+- but can't be faked and has the
same useful "from + to -" mnemonic value.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607