From: "stephan.zimmer" <stephan.zimmer@...>
Date: 2008-11-28T20:25:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby's duck typing

Robert, Sean, Brian,

many thanks for your answers and the very interesting discussion.

> Look at this approach
> http://pastie.org/325446
> hopefully you find it helpful.

Ya, that's really nice, also to me delegation seems more reasonable
than inheritance in many cases. I will utilize it. The "factory
approach" is also nice, I never thought about it. I think it gives
handy code.

> As Paul Graham stated, "In the message-passing model, methods are *of*
> objects, while in the generic function model, they are specialized
> *for* objects.

It might be naive, but wouldn't it be possible to simulate a generic
function by simply accessing the types of the parameters (using
"is_a?") and then provide different function bodies for different
parameters?

Is there any document, paper, etc. which states more details about the
Ruby type system, as design motives, comparisons to other languages,
etc.?

Best,

Stephan