-\item[``Some confusion about a value specialised to a type...'' Huh???]
-(A deeply obscure and unfriendly error message.)
-
-This message crops up when the typechecker sees a reference in an
-interface pragma to a specialisation of an overloaded value
-(function); for example, \tr{elem} specialised for type \tr{[Char]}
-(\tr{String}). The problem is: it doesn't {\em know} that such a
-specialisation exists!
-
-The cause of this problem is (please report any other cases...): The
-compiler has imported pragmatic info for the value in question from
-more than one interface, and the multiple interfaces did not agree
-{\em exactly} about the value's pragmatic info. Since the compiler
-doesn't know whom to believe, it believes none of them.
-
-The cure is to re-compile the modules that {\em re-export} the
-offending value (after possibly re-compiling its defining module).
-Now the pragmatic info should be exactly the same in every case, and
-things should be fine.
+% \item[``Some confusion about a value specialised to a type...'' Huh???]
+% (A deeply obscure and unfriendly error message.)
+%
+% This message crops up when the typechecker sees a reference in an
+% interface pragma to a specialisation of an overloaded value
+% (function); for example, \tr{elem} specialised for type \tr{[Char]}
+% (\tr{String}). The problem is: it doesn't {\em know} that such a
+% specialisation exists!
+%
+% The cause of this problem is (please report any other cases...): The
+% compiler has imported pragmatic info for the value in question from
+% more than one interface, and the multiple interfaces did not agree
+% {\em exactly} about the value's pragmatic info. Since the compiler
+% doesn't know whom to believe, it believes none of them.
+%
+% The cure is to re-compile the modules that {\em re-export} the
+% offending value (after possibly re-compiling its defining module).
+% Now the pragmatic info should be exactly the same in every case, and
+% things should be fine.