On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:
>Andrew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What would you like to be able to do with a syntax object
>> abstraction that you'd not be able to do if you've lost that
>> abstraction?
> Change its representation.
You are confusing ends with means. Abstraction for the sake of
abstraction is useless. Changing something's representation is not a
worthwhile goal unless you benefit by the change. He asked what
benefits you expect to reap by changing the representation. You have
not answered his question.
Bear
