Right, I wasn't putting that it forward as a sign of my deep investment in the topic. More just a laugh at dumb things I got worked up over in college. thanks for the links.

That all said, I don't see why you'd need to remove the double namespace feature in order to have function literals that define multiple interpretations. The value namespace still has just the single value-land binding to the literal, only the `call` procedure (the .( operator, so to speak) needs to be modified to dispatch to the appropriate function-land name as determined by airity and the literal the value was bound to.