On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:

>Andrew Wilcox <xxxxxx@andrewwilcox.name> writes:

>> What would you like to be able to do with a syntax object
>> abstraction that you'd not be able to do if you've lost that
>> abstraction?

> Change its representation.

You are confusing ends with means.  Abstraction for the sake of
abstraction is useless.  Changing something's representation is not a
worthwhile goal unless you benefit by the change.  He asked what
benefits you expect to reap by changing the representation.  You have
not answered his question.

				Bear