I think you are all wrong :P. 

There is a major difference between Map and Lightcurve in that lightcurve is inherently time-based while Map is not therefore MapCube (a series of images in time) has no equivalent in lightcurve since it is ALREADY a series of measurements in time! 

Another example, say you ran the following
```python
goes = LightCurve(TimeRange('2012/01/01', '2012/01/02'), source = goes)
```
This call just downloads two goes fits files (say goesfile1.fits and goesfile2.fits). Therefore, say, I already had those two files then the output of the first call should be equivalent to  
```python
goes = LightCurve(['goesfile1.fits', 'goesfile2.fits'])
```
but you guys are advocating that the second call return a list of two light curves unless I call concatenate. 

If users want two light curves objects (or a list of them) then they can very easily create such a list by looping over an array of files.

@rhewett if the user accidentally inputs the same file twice (edge case) we can very easily test for that or overwrite the data with no loss to the user since the data is the same.

My main concern is that MOST of the time users will want their data concatenated and it is annoying to force them to state this every time. Users will expect things to "just work". I know that if I gave it two files I would expect a nice and tidy data frame with every loaded up so I am ready to get started. I think all of you are thinking too much about edge cases. If they want to (for some reason) open two files from the same data source which are at very different times (edge case) a list then Python already provides a standard interface for this.