Very thought-provoking idea. So, here I am designing the Next Big Language. And I'll take your suggestion. Now, first issue: if I say x = "dog", then the valu

Very thought-provoking idea. So, here I am designing the Next Big Language. And I'll take your suggestion. Now, first issue: if I say x = "dog", then the value of x is really 1 => 'd', 2 => 'o', 3 => 'g' Right? And despite the fact that this is an O.D., it should print in a string-like way: dog. Now suppose I do x['z'] = (1 => 2, 2 => 3) Now x is 1 => 'd', 2 => 'o', 3 => 'g', 'z' => (1 => 2, 2 => 3) How should it print now? Next issue: If I do y[1] = 'a' and y[3] = 'b', and then y << 'c', what is the value of y? Final issue: Do the above questions really matter? One could argue in the first case that if I want something to print nicely, then I will probably keep it in a "reasonable" form, and not mix data types in odd ways. So it really doesn't matter much how the O.D. I came up with prints. Similarly, in the second case, if I want a collection to work well as a stack or queue, then I am probably not going to use the bracket operator to do strange things with it. So it doesn't matter which of the multiple reasonable options for the behavior of << is chosen. Or maybe it does matter?