[erlang-questions] Extensions to comprehensions eeps

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

The statement
>
> The funny symbols are a kind of type annotation by stealth that is  
> quite
> irregular in the language.

applies just as strongly to the existing distinction between
<- and <= .  Would {<-} be better if written the Clean way as <-: ?
How would that be any less "type annotation by stealth"?

If it comes to that, how is the distinction between '/' and 'div'
not "type annotation by stealth".

Let's have some serious comments, please.