Yeah, that's the correct solution. I'm not arguing for the solution, I'm arguing for the problem, because a lot of people seem to think that the problem isn't real.
Sure, but if you put it that way it tends to come across as wanting to not track the distinction at all. Like if you said it's good that values are untyped in Ruby because to write a collection type in C you have to reimplement it for every different type of collection you want: yes, but that doesn't mean values having types is bad, it just means you need polymorphism.
