A thought occurred to me. What should this return: [1,2,3] »+« [4,5,6] At first glance, one might say [5,7,9]. But is that really the best way to go? I'm beginning to think that it should be the same as whatever [1,2,3]+[4,5,6] is, hopefully an error. Here's my reasoning. Substitute $a = [1,2,3] and $b = [4,5,6]. Those are list I<references>, after all. So now it becomes: $a »+« $b That might just be okay, since they're both listrefs, and you shouldn't expect a vector on two scalars to do much besides dereference its arguments. But now, instead of $a, use the real list (1,2,3): (1,2,3) »+« $b That looks extremely different from before. That looks like it's adding $b to each of (1,2,3). Not only that, but say you have: $x »+« $y $x is a number, and $y is a listref. Extrapolating from before, you'd think that this should add $x to each of $y's elements. But this is starting to feel like run-time DWIMmery, which is almost always a Bad Idea (favoring syntactic DWIMmery). So I'm going to argue that: [1,2,3] »+« [4,5,6] either give an error because you can't add listrefs, or give a "useless use of vector operation on two scalars" error. And if you want what we originally thought, use: (1,2,3) »+« (4,5,6) @$a »+« @$b $x »+« @$y Luke àThread Next