> Unless you replace is with can, you're just spewing dogma, not computer science.
Words have to mean something if we're to communicate at all.
> Under a particular paradigm, we can choose to associate types with the nodes in the program's abstract syntax tree, and to have types nowhere else. Then within that paradigm, when we say type, we refer to information attached only to the nodes in the program, and nowhere else.
This stuff predates programming, it goes back to formal language research. That's what type means! If you want to mean something else you should say something else.
Words have to mean something if we're to communicate at all.
> Under a particular paradigm, we can choose to associate types with the nodes in the program's abstract syntax tree, and to have types nowhere else. Then within that paradigm, when we say type, we refer to information attached only to the nodes in the program, and nowhere else.
This stuff predates programming, it goes back to formal language research. That's what type means! If you want to mean something else you should say something else.