[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: > Nothing, the impractical part is making arrays objects--they aren't,
Hang on. We're saying that they should be. You're saying that they're not. You haven't produced any reasons *WHY* they're not. Why *aren't* they arrays? It's perfectly practical; most other scripting languages do it. If Parrot wants to support them, Parrot will have to do it too. So what's the big problem? > and we're not particularly going to go out of our way to make them > so. Your argument seems to be: "We can't make arrays objects because they aren't objects and we aren't making them objects." I don't find that a very strong argument; at best, it's a case of imposing your particular favourite implementation method on the language design, and at worst it's completely circular. -- "In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson
