From: Tim Connor <timocratic@...>
Date: 2008-02-01T07:25:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Gedankenexperiment on method duck type safety

> See code implementing something similar athttp://people.freebsd.org/~eivind/ruby/types/

I like your warning in the readme: http://people.freebsd.org/~eivind/ruby/types/README
and I wouldn't be surprised to find that being the case.  I was
considering though if a less verbose approach would be more rubyish
and less painful.  None of the extra pre-declaration required in the
usual type system, but just how to make method declarations more
explicitly contractual (looking at the contractual aspect more than
the type system aspect).  I suspect it is still a case of YAGNI, as I
haven't really needed it yet, too much, but there are just some odd,
harder than they should be bugs I've had to trace.

Yeah tests and BDD helps a lot, and maybe a convention of always
testing the nil and edge cases for each parameter.  But when something
nested goes awry, in a situation you know exactly what the function
wants (even if it's just a responds_to), it might be nice to get a
more immediate failure.  Maybe that would interfere with refactoring
and lead to a more Javaesque inflexibility, though. I dunno, to be
honest.  Which is why I posted. ;)

Apparently in your experience it just led to additional pain with
little benefit?