From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-05-23T19:48:44+09:00
Subject: Re: How to duck type? - the psychology of static typing in Ruby


"Sean Russell" <ser@germane-software.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:83173408.0405201354.1eabbfe2@posting.google.com...
> Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote in message
news:<40ABE0B2.3030302@hypermetrics.com>...
> > Well, here's one comment.
> >
> >    if foo()
> >      def 5.collect
> >        puts "I exist!"
> >      end
> >    end
> ...
> > The point is, methods may be added/deleted/redefined at runtime. This
> > makes static checking very difficult in the general case.
>
> Yes.  As Gabriele Renzi mentioned, I'm more interested in catching as
> much as I can.  This sort of modification is pretty rare, in my code,
> at least.  If we have something that can check 90% of the type
> instances, than I can live with manually looking harder at the rest of
> the 10%.

Really?  How will you find those 10%?  Wouldn't you have to look at 100% to
identify those 10%?

Regards

    robert