From: Ken Bloom <kbloom@...>
Date: 2007-03-02T11:10:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Duck Typing  Hash-Like Objects

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:01:06 +0900, Gary Wright wrote:

> On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:38 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> You're still type checking, you're just doing it in a more fragile way.
>>  If you want to type check, use the class, I say.
> 
> Yet if I test for (Hash == mystery_obj) that would not allow someone to
> pass an RBTree object instead, which I think is a very reasonable thing
> to allow and works just fine if I only use #fetch.
> 
> A minimum interface to an indexable collection might be:
> 
>    has_key?(key)
>    fetch(key)
>    store(key, val)
> 
> In a quick look it seems like only Hash and RBTree implement those
> methods though.

Is there a good reason why you can't just use different constructors for 
different types of objects, then just trust that they duck-type OK?

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/