I think this is a good idea. I don't know why the syntax would have to change though..

I think the biggest thing was hit on by Randall. There is a need to break up the system.

Back to the syntax... I guess you could declare things like this...

x: x y: y = ( x: x. y: y.).

maybe...

x: x (0) y: y (0) = (x: x. y: y.).

Then this could be called as x: ~ y: ~. The '~' could mean 'insert default value'?

Dru Nelson Redwood City, California

------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/self-interest Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com