From: Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-08-11T23:59:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Java/C# "interface" in Ruby ?

James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> 
>>> Mixins work better than "interfaces" ever will.
>>>
>>
>> I beg to differ here: mixin modules provide implementaitions while
>> interfaces just define method signatures.  IMHO mixin modules are  better
>> compared to multiple inheritance or reuse.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have to agree here.  To me, the Ruby equivalent of interfaces  
> would be Duck Typing.
> 
> James Edward Gray II

I released "interface" on the RAA, mainly as proof that interfaces 
*could* be done in Ruby if you really wanted them.  Note that I've never 
used it in actual production code.

The *only* Ruby library I've seen so far that *might* benefit from an 
interface is DBI, where you want to ensure that all of the DBD's have a 
common set of methods.

Even then, it's easy enough to simply document what methods should be 
defined and what they should do, then add a generic test suite which DBD 
writers can use to ensure correctness.

Regards,

Dan