That is, in all seriousness, precisely what I'm suggesting.

*b is *b whether its in list context or scalar context.

Correct. But *b is not \*b in list context or scalar context, or any other named context I can find. And yet they are the same in statements like *a = *b; and *a = \*b; Hence, I am suggesting that this constitutes an example of a distinct context, unlike the others.

In short, I am asking for criticism of this theory.

I am also trying to see what interest there is in this sort of approach to thinking about Perl; I've been doing a lot of it lately, and it's been quite interesting and educational. We customarily look at Perl as a tool, for the purpose of accomplishing our objectives with it. While this, of course, interests me greatly, I fear it can be a limiting perspective; I also wonder whether the models we're using to describe Perl have unsatisfactory limitations.

One monk privately said in jest, "it's all too theoretical." I'm afraid many people will view such discussions that way in earnest. Nonetheless, this sort of thing seems significant to me.