"Type" has been an ill-defined term in the context of J. But it's a popular word, for describing some aspects of computer programs, and a short word. So it probably deserves some use.
And, I think, in the context of J, it should signify a thing that can go inside parenthesis. That concept needs a name, and I think "type" fits it rather well. Thus, we have system types: (1)(+)(1) We have named types: (smoutput)(ARGV) We have anonymous types: (+/%#) (i.9) We have types of nouns, types of verbs and so on. We have numeric types, textual types, list types (and these can overlap), and so on. etc. Now, one thing that this loses is the idea of a type as a collection... or does it? (1 2 3 4) No, what this loses is the idea of a type as a representation of possibilities... or does it? ? bind 100 No, what this loses is the idea of a type as a storage format. But when I have proposed the idea that "type" represents a storage format, I have been told that that's silly, by people who would be in a position to know. Another concept of a type is that it represents a "domain", but that has a similar lack of acceptance from people that deal with types on a regular basis. Anyways, if my proposal here has any flaws, I think it's that this definition of "type" might be too restrictive for some people. But I think that that is ok -- you can use another language if you want to use a different concept of type. Comments? Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
