It depends on the context. I guess rayiner has referred to "untyped lambda calculus".
Thats not a bad name as it is self consistent - there are no type expressions in that language. If you say that it is actally "unityped" it is (just) your (semantical) categorization looking at it from a higher level perspective.
Of course on the other side whole numbers were just "number"-s, before fractionals came, so in the end it may be ok to introduce higher level perspective in naming just to diferrentiate better. :)
Thats not a bad name as it is self consistent - there are no type expressions in that language. If you say that it is actally "unityped" it is (just) your (semantical) categorization looking at it from a higher level perspective.
Of course on the other side whole numbers were just "number"-s, before fractionals came, so in the end it may be ok to introduce higher level perspective in naming just to diferrentiate better. :)