> Blake, I can understand your argument, Smalltalk cannot serve every  
> different logics. Though they can eventually coexist with subclasses  
> sometimes. Choices have to be made. Lots of ambiguity come from our  
> language: different guys have differnt understandings (even math  
> language is ambiguous and strongly contextual, and that's part of its  
> power for sure).
>
> But common, no math means no geometry, no windows, no menu, no Smalltalk
> math/algebra is everywhere/behind/inside Smalltalk.
>
> And enforcing the well-behaved / least surprising / strongly logical  
> kernel with good mathematical background cannot be a bad thing.
>
> I feel that's what's in the mind of sig.

Fair point, and I apologize if I sounded snarky.

I tend to view these things from a language standpoint. If it makes sense  
the way I would read it, I think that's a good thing.