Well, Perl 6's type system has difficulties with respect to numeric types, because they don't form a nice hierarchy. Luckily we have roles, and thus can have a type of all (scalar) numeric types without pressing them into a hierarchy.
Implementing the numeric types correctly is a bit tricky, but the fact remains that the user (aka Perl 6 programmer) can simply add (or override) operators for each pair of types. If one of them is always a user-defined one you can guarantee no clashes with existing semantics.
So I don't see how Perl 6 isn't a *solution* wrt to adding new numeric types to the language - would you care to elaborate? | [reply] |

| [reply] |

Exactly.
If you limit yourself to a few numeric types, the problem won't seem to be that big a deal. If you know the long list of numeric types that mathematicians have (including many number of parametrized families of numeric types), it starts to become harder. Particularly when the answer has to be a different type than either operand (eg a Gaussian integer plus a rational number is generally a Gaussian rational).
| [reply] |

That response reminds of something Prof. Irwin Corey would say. (Yeah I'm that old :-) )
| [reply] |