>
> I don't care what is actually happening now; my point is that it is
> _wrong_ to have code work in a way that is so absurdly confusing. I can
> see just what the bytecode stream is doing and thus why the answer is
> currently what it is but that just ain't a good excuse. Evidence of past
> foolishness is not evidence for continued foolishness.
>
> Does anyone really think that it is _proper_ that
>
> | m n  |
>
> n := 2.
> m := 3.
> n := m + (m := n).
>
> gives a different answer to
>
> | m n  |
>
> n := 2.
> m := 3.
> m := n.
> n := m + m.
> ??
>
> tim

	I just checked it out, and this is not good... o.O

	Can someone come up with a case where a problem like this is non trivial?

	-Daniel Joyce