On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 07:26:17PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > > Um.... given those specifications, which appear to be effectively
>     > > identical, why would a client of this (meta-)interface ever use one of
>     > > these procedures in preference to the other?   Therefore why does the
>     > > interface need both?
>
>     > Because code may be written initially that accepts an ordered=20
>     > collection or sequence, and may wish to pass an unordered bag in the=20
>     > future.  This allows that to occur without error.  Thank you for the=20
>     > constructive discussion.
>
>
> Well, gosh.  It doesn't seem to me like a minor point.   It doesn't
> seem like a problem that is really fixed by a quick tweak.  It seems
> to me to point to some deep conceptual errors in the whole framework
> of 44.
>
Hmm?  I just pointed out how its very much by design to have those
functions behave how they do.

	Scott