I am saying that an object has a type, rather than is a type or some augmentation of it. An object is a term-level construction and therefore is not really com

I am saying that an object has a type, rather than is a type or some augmentation of it. An object is a term-level construction and therefore is not really comparable to a type. Types can be given to both state and behaviour. For example, a function type describes pure behaviour. Note that statically-typed OOP languages have a name for the nominal types of objects: "classes". One could say that a class is a type representing both state and behaviour.