From: Austin Ziegler <Austin.Ziegler@...>
Date: 2004-06-07T23:44:31+09:00
Subject: Re: How to ducktype a Hash?

Gavin Sinclair [mailto:gsinclair@soyabean.com.au]:
> What if a class tags itself as a "hash type" but an instance of it
> redefines a method in a way that contradicts that type?
> 
> I'm not being alarmist, but your messages have shown a great deal
> of concern for knowing that an object does what it advertises. How
> do you see the above scenario, then?
> 
> I don't think your idea is a bad one, by the way.

No, you're not being alarmist at all; even in statically typed
languages, this is possible.

I could define

  class Foo < Doer
  {
    int does(int this) // reimplementation of Doer::does
    {
      // something with an undesired side-effect
    }
  }

-austin
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com