Thanks - I knew all that, but I guess I expected those semantics to be implicit rather than explicit. I guess because we're not really looking at an "AST" but a

Thanks - I knew all that, but I guess I expected those semantics to be implicit rather than explicit. I guess because we're not really looking at an "AST" but an intermediate executable representation. Certainly this is good for understanding what Ruby is doing, but not so useful for understanding what fib is doing - trees vs. forest. I guess what you really want is to be able to zoom into IL-semantics only if you care about such things, otherwise you show only enough detail to get across the algorithm being expressed -- possibly with the addition of declaratively showing additional constraints that have been added by the runtime without showing how the contraints have been satisfied.