From: Mark Wilden <mark@...>
Date: 2008-05-29T05:09:23+09:00
Subject: Re: The duck's backside

On May 28, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

>> But if you want to check for numeric parameters, would it be better  
>> just to use Numeric === v ? I know this isn't the ducky way, but it  
>> certainly seems more "intentional."
>
> That'd be marginally more readable but to my mind it's overly  
> cautious: what's the point of using Ruby if you're still going to  
> follow static typing conventions?

The only point of using Ruby (or any other tool in the universe) is to  
get a job done. :) I would never use a Ruby feature just because Ruby  
makes it possible.

Numeric === v is not a static typing convention (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system) 
. It's just OOP. It says in computer-understandable terms exactly what  
you expressed in English: "v is numeric."

I don't even know what the ability to respond to :to_int means. Does  
that mean the entity is numeric? Does a numeric string qualify? Does a  
floating point number qualify? Could Array support this method? Does  
every class that responds to to_int do semantically equivalent things?  
(think Cowboy#draw and Artist#draw). The only way to tell is to test  
it or look it up. This doesn't make it "marginally" less readable than  
Numeric === v, IMO.

Different strokes, of course...

///ark