From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2005-01-26T22:18:57+09:00
Subject: Re: Injecting methods from one class into another.

Quoteing dblack@wobblini.net, on Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:31:29PM +0900:
> Hi --
> 
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, E S wrote:
> 
> >Duck typing, essentially, means that, /in a particular context/, a
> >given object has all the characteristics of a given type. For example,
> >it might be enough for an object to implement [] and []= for it to be
> >treated as a Hash in a certain context.
> 
> It's not exactly that it's being treated as a Hash -- it's more that,
> *like* a Hash, it's being treated as an object that responds to [] and
> []=.  This is, perhaps, a subtle point, but I think it's key in
> getting away from the class-based view.  All of the []/[]= objects
> converge on the type that can only be described as "the type of
> objects that respond to [] and []=".  In that sense, Hashes are just
> one of infinitely many possible objects that exhibit the behaviors of
> that type.

I see your point.

However, if it responds to []= in a way that is NOT like a Hash responds
to those methods, it aint ducky type like a Hash.

Cheers,
Sam