Hans; Yes, that is it how it appeared in my program. I post a note about it here
soon.
It's a interesting case, I hadn't considered it yet. I do feel that the current behavior does make some sense. It's simple and predictable. Your suggestion does have the advantage of being less punishing on what I feel is rather sensible shorthand typing. I think that might make sense.
Yes, one must think carefully as to not have bad rules - the risk is that some unexpected functions may be called.
Indeed. I wouldn't do this, I think, but I agree that it's interesting to contemplate what proper behavior should be. maybe we could use some sort of way of forcing the type of anonymous arrays?
Yes, and that is the first rule I want for arguments as well.
I think that one would be fine under your proposal, yes.
For consistency, [] should work as you suggest - that is how it is in Haskell, for example.
It would be the normal thing.
I think so, and I seem to remember Ge agreed back when I reported the issue. At least now I know how to get around it without defining separate length 0 arrays. Yours, Kas.