After thinking about this a bit more deeply, it occurred to me that maybe this *is* the right behavior. After all, this is an immutable type, so I really shouldn't be modifying the internal values of array fields anyway.
If this immutable type array field happened to have a massive array attached to it, it might make sense to have both immutable objects point at that same array provided that array could not be mutated. The problem is that one *can* mutate the underlying array and undisciplined sods like me go and doing things like the above.
