I wouldn't say I've had any association of that. But your point is taken that the existence of the newline markers kind of throw a bit of a distinction onto what the type is.
While I was hesitant to suggest the dialect usage of newlines, I've kind of changed my thinking on that... inspired by cases like the tuple and path test dialect:
"(a b)/c" -> [@(a b) c]
"(a b) /c" -> @(a b) [_ c]
Being able to leave off a container there just to have a variable number of things on the right felt good. So I started wondering about what kind of signaling you would use in a dialect to say "continued on next line"
With .. and ... being a valid TUPLE!, they aren't necessarily bad options, if they're out of band from whatever your values are:
"(a b)/c" -> [@(a b) c]
"(a b) /c" -> @(a b)
... [_ c]
Back to your point though: it's an odd type. That oddity may speak to favoring what might be for some people a more unfamiliar term, vs. trying to mask it in something they'd presume to be dimensionless.