Re: Vectors as functions

[Shriram Krishnamurthi <address@hidden>]

mike@newhall.net wrote:

>     I guess I don't belong on this list then?  I think you are overlooking
> the perspective that ultimately, theoretical can be very practical. 
> For example, there is a school of thought that orthogonal systems are
> more flexible and useful than non-orthogonal systems (Scheme versus
> Java or C++, for example).  If true I think it is useful and relevant
> to pursue such questions.

Mike, some of us on this list appreciate a good theoretical roll in
the hay as much as the next person.  And of course the theoretical can
be very practical; some of us have this message pasted on our
foreheads.  But to make a case for conflating vectors with functions
(and explain whether you're doing this syntactically or semantically,
in a statically-typed or -untyped setting), you'll need to concretely
state *what* practical benefit you believe will ensue.

Shriram