>I personally would want block closures to accompany
>them, but I think that falls in the [deleted: not-] too-vast set,
>and I have no idea myself how'd I even approach
>implementing that. :)

I agree.

>With full apologies for opening a new can of worms,
>but in my grand scheme of things that might be nicer
>than symbol printing...

I agree.

... and here's my opinion about the process:

It would be a mistake to mix these.  Let's deal with symbol and array printing now and catch the current wave of enthusiasm.  Block closures has been on the list for a long time too (I think it's even an official SqC project), and it can be dealt with in exactly the same process.  But let's just not mix them.  I want results (for all of us) this time.

	- Dan