2 ms·

Range and capability are separate concepts. That’s what I’m getting at—conflating them is problematic, not least because it’s trying to statically specify dynam

Range and capability are separate concepts. That’s what I’m getting at—conflating them is problematic, not least because it’s trying to statically specify dynamic behaviour. Here’s a simple example. A 2D vector (x:ℝ × y:ℝ) is a subtype of a 3D vector (x:ℝ × y:ℝ × z:ℝ). The range of the 3D vector includes that of the 2D one, but there is no sane way to make one a subclass of the other, due to differences in behaviour—magnitude, for instance.

munificent 13y ago
> Here’s a simple example. A 2D vector (x:ℝ × y:ℝ) is a subtype of a 3D vector (x:ℝ × y:ℝ × z:ℝ). Again, I think that's backwards. Every 3D vector is also a 2D vector if you ignore its z coordinate, so 3D vectors are a subtype of 2D vectors (assuming some type system that has subtyping between tuples of fewer fields). You could implement this by having 3D vector subclass 2D, but as you note that's fraught with peril. But that's because substitutability requires meaningful semantic behavior and not just matching signatures. Just because two objects can both "foo" doesn't mean they are substitutable in a pragmatic sense. They have to do the appropriate thing when you foo them.