> If so, what about the "coercibility" property?
> The standard defines four distinct coercibility properties. So in
> above my example, actually you are going to define 80 new types?
> (also a collation could be either "PAD SPACE" or "NO PAD". So you
> might have 160 new types).
Well, yes I suppose so. The point is that these relationships *must be
defined anyway*. Allowed and forbidden conversions must be defined,
collation order must be defined, indexing operations must be defined,
etc etc etc. In fact, everything typically associated with a type must
be defined, including the allowed conversions between other types
(character sets/collations).
So, how are we going to do this *in a general way* without carrying the
infrastructure of a (the) type system along with it? What would we be
able to leave out or otherwise get for free if we use another mechanism?
And is that mechanism fundamentally simpler than (re)using the type
system that we already have?
- Thomas