| The trouble with those parts is that NOWHERE do they discuss how to | translate a let or where containing more than one binding. If they're | not to be translated via tupling, then how are they to be translated? Sorry I wasn't clear. Given let { p1 = e1; ... ; pn = en } in e0 (P1) For each pattern pi that is of form !qi = ei, transform it to xi@qi = ei and replace e0 by (xi `seq` e0) (P2) Now no pattern has a ! at the top. Now apply the existing rules in 3.12 of the Haskell report. So step (P1) above adds some seqs, and after that it's all just standard Haskell 98. My summary so far: 1) Bang patterns by themselves are quite decent, well-behaved patterns. 2) Rule (P1) is simple to describe. But the ! in a pattern binding is treated as part of the *binding* rather than part of the *pattern* which is wart-y. 3) There is a good argument to be made that pattern bindings should be strict by default. That is let (x,y) = e in b would evaluate e strictly. However that is *not* the same as saying that 'let' is strict. let x = e in b remains a lazy binding of x (because, as usual, a variable pattern matches without evaluation). 4) John argues that it would be bad to adopt bang patterns without also adopting (3). I don't agree. But I'm still attracted by (3). I will add some of this to the Wiki. Please do not treat it as "my" page --- any committee member can edit it. Simon