I think this is right, but it's still IMO basically a natural language semantics issue. For instance in haskell (which has a pretty advanced static type system)

I think this is right, but it's still IMO basically a natural language semantics issue. For instance in haskell (which has a pretty advanced static type system), I would still probably be satisfied with: -- A float between 0 and 1, inclusive. type UnitInterval = Float foo :: UnitInterval -> SomeResultPresumably foo accuracy = ... i.e. I think the essential problem in the SO question is solved, even though we have no additional type safety. A language without type synonyms could do just as well with CPP defines