From: Florian Gross <flgr@...>
Date: 2005-01-26T21:55:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Injecting methods from one class into another.

David A. Black wrote:

> One might paraphrase it, perhaps, as:
> 
>   If it walks and quacks, then it walks and quacks.
> 
> with the implication that (a) that's all you need to know, and (b)
> these capabilities unite this object with other objects with the same
> capabilities.

That's exactly what I thought was wrong with the common duck typing 
saying. If it walks and quacks it is not a duck, it is something that 
walks and quacks. Thanks for stating this. :)