Issue: ARRAY-TYPE-ELEMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS (Version 9)

[Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>]

re: Why would Lucid oppose allowing other
    implementors to take a different implementation strategy? Certainly your
    compiler optimizations could continue to work based on your assertions
    about your own array implementation types.

Your suggestion was to permit a (gratuitous) variation on upgrading
which would make reasonable compiler optimization impossible on portable
programs.  The compiler optimization can only work by assuming that
there are no variations beyond the ones it "knows" about.  It is
reasonable to ask for declarations about "simpleness" and about element
type; but is is not reasonable to require declarations on size.

Anyway, I though moon already put the scotch on this whole line of inquiry
due to the type separateness of strings and bit-vectors.


-- JonL --