From: "David A. Black" Date: 2008-05-29T20:35:49+09:00 Subject: Re: The duck's backside Hi -- On Thu, 29 May 2008, Robert Dober wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM, David A. Black wrote: > >> >> The idea of duck typing, as I understand it, is to embrace this >> inalterable fact about Ruby objects, rather than try to wish it away, >> with ancestry checks and the like. This makes sense to me; it stands >> to reason that a language with objects whose types can change during >> runtime would be well-served by a programming style that deals as >> directly and economically as possible with precisely that condition. > > I have to admit that I was quite disappointed that my implementation > of traits got so few feedback. That is not the personal disappointment > that comes simply for the reason that one wants to share a project and > cannot as it does not interest others, that is a risk to take of > course ;). > It surprised me though that Rubiests that I learnt to like and > respect, like e.g. you Dave, still use the terms "types" and "classes" s/Dave/David/ :-) > as > if they were not in contradiction to what they are saying about duck > typing afterwards. Sorry, I'm not sure which contradiction you're talking about. Can you clarify? David -- Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light: INTRO TO RAILS June 9-12 Berlin ADVANCING WITH RAILS June 16-19 Berlin INTRO TO RAILS June 23-26 London (Skills Matter) See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!