From: dblack@...
Date: 2006-07-25T05:48:29+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!

Hi --

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, transfire@gmail.com wrote:

> I wonder then, if we take up John Carter's notion on duck as mixin,
> then Enumerable can be defined as:
>
>  ducktype :each do
>    def collect
>      each{ |e| yield(e) }
>    end
>    ...
>  end
>
> Although clearly the distinction between a mixin and a ducktype is the
> ducktypes global influence. Quite powerful! Yet, I do imagine that with
> this is place someone would call for selector namepsaces to reign in
> the abundant flocks ;) Onefurther step would have to be taken, at the
> very least. a means of constraining them to specific scopes. Perhaps
> that's a simple as limiting them the module space they are defined in?
>
> In any case very interesting. I really wonder just how far one can take
> this shift in paradigm?

If it's a shift in paradigm, then it isn't "duck typing" (which is a
term invented to describe aspects of programming in Ruby).

Please choose a different animal :-)


David

-- 
http://www.rubypowerandlight.com => Ruby/Rails training & consultancy
http://www.manning.com/black     => RUBY FOR RAILS (reviewed on
                                     Slashdot, 7/12/2006!)
http://dablog.rubypal.com        => D[avid ]A[. ]B[lack's][ Web]log
dblack@wobblini.net              => me