Generic algorithms

Implement a single function that takes two arguments and returns the bigger of the two. Assume you don't know the type of the  arguments and you don't know if the types can be compared. Assume that if a type can be compared, it will always be implemented by following a single standard. Use the latest standard of your language. Write the simplest program
that will pass an integer 1(one) and a float 1.1(one point one) into the function and write the result to standard output.

Post the compiler you used, the code and the result.
Write what will happen if the max function is called with broken syntax (I'm looking at you C macros).
Write what will happen if the objects of a type can't be compared.

I'll start with C and C++.
Compiler: gcc 4.3.2 20081105 (Red Hat 4.3.2-7)
#include <iostream>
template<class F>
F& max(F& a, F& b) { return (a < b) ? b : a; }
int main() { std::cout << max(1, 1.1) << '\n'; }
Results: Compile time error:
max.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
max.cpp:6: error: no matching function for call to ‘max(int, double)’
Bad syntax: Standard compile-time error
No comparison: Standard compile-time error about undefined operator<

#define max(a, b) (less(a, b) ? b : a)
#include <stdio.h>
int less(int a, int b) { return a < b; }
int main() { printf("%f\n", max(1, 1.1)); }
Result: Bad output
1.000000
Bad syntax: Depends on the error in the syntax. Can either compile and cause undefined behaviour or fail at compile time with strange syntax errors.
No comparison: Standard compile-time error about an undefined function.

>>95
How about something where you compare 2 types that do not share the same base type in common, but do contain data that can be compared.
Like the Abelson from my example can be compared to a Sussman?

You could make a generic algorithm that will pummel any type into submission but the results will be meaningless in almost all cases. Therefore, I think, it is a genuinely good idea to assume that if a type can be compared to another type it will explicitly state that in it's interface (like the Abelson class). You could also compare bits that consist the data of an object to bits of another object of a different type but such a comparison is useless in most cases, unless you're interested in run-time profiling.

You've expired your entertainment value , troll.

>>106
RTTI and reflection are allowed. You're allowed to use each and every feature of your language of choice. I didn't mean to bias this in favor of static languages. I want to see what tools can each language provide for writing code similar to >>88.