From: zuzu <sean.zuzu@...>
Date: 2004-07-19T17:15:47+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby idiom for parsing function arguments?

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:52:08 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> "zuzu" <sean.zuzu@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:a988e9f604071816245a8892af@mail.gmail.com...
> 
> > 2.) i would like to clarify, that this is not necessarily for reading
> > ruby, the interpreter, or chmod +x .rb files, shell command lines.
> > this should apply to any function/method's arguments; as in
> > object.method(arg1, arg2, arg3).
> 
> What exactly do you want to do?  I mean, you don't have to parse method
> arguments since that is taken care of by Ruby.
> 
> Btw: see also "Duck Typing".
> 
> Regards
> 
>     robert

word.  http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DuckTyping
my initial impression of "duck typing" was equivalent to dynamic
typing, but there seems to be a little more to the mallard definition.
 i would appreciate an example of code demonstrating how to introspect
a "hey, what kind of object are you?" message/method.

i'm looking to extend ruby to the actor/dataflow model where instead
of "everything is an object", "everything is an actor".  as an
intended side-effect, this should encourage runtime
introspection/reflection and concurrency/parallelization in
programming.

so specifically, if i'm randomly (according to the scheduler) passing
an object/actor dataflow and options as arguments, i would like a
"behaviour script" to successfully differentiate them introspectively
rather than explicitly (by the programmer).

-z