On 02/06/2015 11:40, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > > Is arch-obj-n added to obj-y somewhere I'm missing? Such an inclusion would > > seem to tidy some of the lines above... > > No it's not. I didn't even know that was ok.
Indeed it's not a great idea, because such objects would be split between arch-obj- (no "n") and arch-obj-n. This is why we have lnot. Paolo
