explanations vs. examples vs. design



Richard Fateman wrote:

>  
>
>>There seems to be a misundertanding. I do not want to describe how but
>>why. I.e. why does
>>f(s):=s[1] not work as expected?
>>    
>>
>
>The learn-from-random-trials is the theory that a well-designed language or
>interface will be so natural that people will use it correctly without
>needing an explanation.  
>
But I believe you are not being entirely consistent here. According to 
the previous
paragraph    f(s):=s[1] should do what it does in any other language 
(except CL perhaps).
I.e s[1] (as an rvalue) should be made syntactic sugar for 
arrayapply(s,[1]).  But that
you don't seem to like either.

If you insist f(s):=s[1] should stay as it is but is bad programming 
then people do deserve an
explanation why.

Michel