Hi Tim, thanks for chipping in. You make a good point, and it goes to show that sometimes one would want to have different names for a types to indicate different behaviors, even though the data layout is exactly the same.
What I'm wondering about is the case where the behavior is the same as well, and the type parameterization only standard for different groups of instances. In this case, and especially when the grouping is a product of different constructor initializations, it doesn't feel quite right to me to parameterize the type, and maybe a better design is to have few overloaded constructors. The problem that arises with this solution is that the different constructors cannot be aliased to shorter names without losing their association with the type. Uri
