I enjoy that the Dictionary uses the word "classes" because it leaves the word "type" untouched.
Discussions of types in computer language discussions goes far beyond the variety in atomic values of nouns, as Raul indicated. The topics we want to discuss within strictly J settings do, too. There is something distinctive about J phrases that are valid when parenthesized. I like using the word "type" with that precise constraint, in a J context. In other words, I endorse Raul's suggestion. If there are conflicts between that and type theory as developed elsewhere, the precision of our use should help expose them. --T ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
