Re: Vectors as functions

[address@hidden]

> One of the best things about this list is that people here realize that
> such purely theoretical concerns are not the only ones that matter.

    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.

> Also, it's not just the special syntax (altho it is very important) --
> it's also the fact that vectors cannot be confused for other types
> (either statically or dynamically); the abstraction is unbreakable.

    I think I need some elaboration of your point here: doesn't the
special syntax provide that lack of confusion?  Are you talking about
the syntax as an aid to the language in addition to the programmer?