From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-07-27T00:07:38+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> It sounds like a very useful term, but maybe not a synonym for duck
> typing...?  I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound like one would say: Interface
> polymorphism is a way of thinking about programming in Ruby [if I'm
> paraphrasing Dave Thomas correctly].  One might say: Ruby offers interface
> polymorphism, which encourages duck typing [if I'm using i.p. correctly :-]

right.  one would say something like

   'make your methods accept interface polymorphic objects for maximum re-use'

eg

   def m obj
     p obj.foobar # takes any obj that responds_to? 'foobar' - NEVER do we check type
   end

afaikt this is a concrete prescription for 'duck typing' that avoids
mentioning types!


> My view is that we don't need to choose a winner-take-all term to refer
> collectively to *everything* connected with Ruby's type mechanism, including
> the way(s) programmers use that mechanism.  We can have a slightly whimsical
> but expressive term like "duck typing" to refer to one aspect of it, and
> other terms to refer to other, related things.  I'm fond of "duck typing",
> "quasi-prototyped objects", and various other terms -- all of which refer to
> something of interest.

indeed - still that 'type' bit is quite a cause for confusion.

cheers.

-a
-- 
suffering increases your inner strength.  also, the wishing for suffering
makes the suffering disappear.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama