terminological obscurity

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Donn Cave wrote:
> Well, I'm not really sure what he has in mind there, so there
> is some ambiguity for students of homogeneity such as ourselves.

I was trying to point out (and try again), that uniform typing and 
homogeneity are *not* the same things, all the time. However, people 
often consider them to be the same thing, and for a good reason:
In *most* applications, homogenous structures are uniformly typed,
and uniformly typed collections are typically homogenous.

Now, if someone brings up a collection which is homogenous, but
where elements have different most-specific types, it may still
be the case that the types share some common supertype. One way
of obtaining such a common supertype is the introduction of a
union type. However, this is about typing, not about homogeneity.

Regards,
Martin