🚀 go-pugleaf

>I would propose the following terminology:

><type>			The equivalence class of all <values> to which
>			a given set of operations can be meanigfully
>			applied.

Make certain that you don't proscribe certain views of the world
through too narrow a definition.  Consider the language Russell, where
types are viewed not as data, but rather as collection of operations
on data.  You may consider this to be an argument over a glass of
water being "half-empty" vs. "half-full", but I found the Russell
outlook on the question of "what are types, really?" to be very
pleasant.

><latent typing>	When the <value> denoted by a <reference> has a
>			<type> that cannot be determined at compiletime.

><manifest typing>	Being able to do <typing> for the <values>
>			denoted by <references> (i.e. variables) at
>			compiletime.

Of course, the obvious name for manifest typing is really blatant
typing, the obvious meaning being that the types of things are obvious
enough that even a compiler can deduce them :-).  That way, we have
"latent" vs. "blatant", a very pleasant sounding pair.  Of course, the
invitation to incorrectly spell them either (or both?!?)  as blatent
(bleah!) or latant (fooey!) is too tempting for some...
--
"it is perfectly safe to eat the yogurt under the green fuzz,
 and I do it fairly often" - brian reid

	Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas