[ Slippinrippindangfangrottenzargbargadingdong!  I did it _again_! ]

On Saturday, Oct 11, 2003, at 14:08 US/Eastern, bear wrote:

> But I don't know if we really need this special form, since an
> ellipsis (or a sequence of them) can already be used to match
> an ellipsis (or a longer sequence of them).  IOW, what would we
> use the special form for that we couldn't use an ellipsis for?

You've lost me here.  Ellipsis is for matching a sequence; how can
ellipsis
match literal ellipsis?  Are you talking about an arbitrarily nested
number
of ellipses, i.e. to be matched with (::: ...), in which case we _still_
need :::?