From: Dumaiu <Dymaio@...>
Date: 2006-07-26T13:35:14+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!

7rans wrote:
...
>
> The term ducking typing, according to your own convictions can be
> nothing of the sort. For it is completely contradictory to call
> something a "type" when by defintion it excludes anything type
> whatsoever. It would be more appropritate call it duck anti-typing, if
> anything.
>

For the record, I'll cross-reference with Mr. Black's 2:16 PM post,
where he addressed this:

dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
...
>
> I've always felt that the Achilles' heel of the duck typing metaphor
> was the "then it *is a* duck" -- which implies that there's a Duck
> thing out there which something else can "be".  I don't think it's
> supposed to be an airtight analytical tool for Ruby's design, though,
> just (as Dave says) a way of thinking about programming in Ruby.
>