Very true. For boring reasons, I actually prefer it that way for my own work (I want errors if the types don't exactly match as it means other parts of my code are doing something unexpected - I like cheap redundant error checks). But I agree that for general use it should work as you suggest.
Cheers, Colin On Friday, 3 June 2016 18:22:21 UTC+10, Jutho wrote: > > Looks ok, but I think you could generically have less restricted types in > your functions: e.g. > 4 in BasicInterval(3.1,4.9) > won't work, nor will you be able to construct an interval > BasicInterval(3,4.5)
