FWIW, I think you may be dangerously close to reinventing APL. :-)

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Travis Griggs wrote:

> Point, and could be implemented using the exact same code. It was driven by the
> fact that as I made Point's interface be more compatible with Number's, I found
> myself copy/pasting most of the methods. From a classification view though, 'twould
> seem that Point should not be a subclass of Number - not because of what Number is,
> but because of what Magnitude is. Some MI pundits would argue this is why we should
> have MI - I don't know.