coercive polymorphism

11.9: adda/oop/declaring coercive polymorphism as {supertyping, subtyping}:

. in csp types (coercive subtype polymorphism), as exemplified by numbers,

the syntax has the choice of having either a type declare its subtypes,

or have each subtype declaring which supertype it inherits from .

. in a supertype like number,

the subtypes are known in advance, and so the membership is closed .

. perhaps the design should be unifying this syntax choice

with that of identifying dimensions and measuring systems ?

. some csp types do need to add sublcasses later

so simplest syntax would not be one where

the supertype was including known subtypes .

pos:

. rather than keep meanings attached by conventional oop terminology,

it's better to stay with classic meanings of word components

eg, keep the definition of class the same way it's used in logic,

and then use classic terminology to create your own terminology

that is consistent and giving a diff'name for each big idea .