From: Bill Barnhill <xmlarchitect@...>
Date: 2006-03-15T00:14:32+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] abstract method in Ruby

------=_Part_4016_21132757.1142349256270
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Ok, I think I see what you mean. I didn't have the right understanding of
duck-typing and your explanation of how it works make a lot of sense, thoug=
h
coming from Java the idea makes my stomach a bit queasy as I relied on
Interfaces a lot.

Thanks for help,
--Bill

On 3/14/06, Avdi Grimm <avdi.grimm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/14/06, Bill Barnhill <xmlarchitect@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I have the constraint that objects within a certain group must be
> able to
> > respond to the methods that make up behavior X, then what would be the
> best
> > way to ensure that?
>
> The point of duck typing is that your code automatically ensures it,
> without any extra work on your part, by raising exceptions when the
> methods aren't implemented.  The bonus you get for relying on your
> code to do just-in-time type verification is that the "prototypes"
> never get out of sync with the actual requirements of the code,
> because the code IS the prototype.
>
> ~Avdi
>
>

------=_Part_4016_21132757.1142349256270--