🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <id.6DTO.VWK@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|> [...]                    , I think your definition of
|> the word "type" is a little narrow. How about:
|> 
|> 	The word `type' refers to the set of operations that may
|> 	be performed on a collection of data.

You mean, like whether coercion to integer can be done without loss
of precision?  Things like that?  The thing is that _all_ attributes,
even those conventionally regarded as `value', effect the set of
operations that may be performed on the data.  I can define an operation
which will only work on prime-number arguments - does this make primeness
a `type' attribute?

Once again, your definition doesn't actually specify any criterion for
deciding which attributes of the data are `type' and which aren't.  You
can _arbitrarily_ select a few kinds of attributes which you will call
`type' if you want to.  What purpose will such an exercise serve?

J. Giles