Radey Shouman writes:

> That is not the situation that I had in mind. In SCM, for example,
> all vectors are arrays, but some arrays are not vectors, in
...
> The only cost is that disjointness cannot be guaranteed between
> arrays and vectors -- and I'm not sure why it is even particularly
> desireable.

I've been thinking of this. I begin, slowly, to see that (1) there
really is essentially no runtime cost for arrays, and (2) that R5RS
vectors need not be redefined at all. So it seems like a win.

Now, sharing a vector, or an array that shares a vector, can in some
cases produce an array that essentially is that vector. Should we
specify that the result of share-array is never a vector, or is a
vector when it can be, or leave it unspecified?
--
Jussi