From: Phrogz <phrogz@...>
Date: 2009-11-15T13:20:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Naming conventions -- was: Re: DRYing a Regex

On Nov 13, 9:21 pm, James Edward Gray II <ja...@graysoftinc.com>
wrote:
> I would like to see us move away from considering classes to be types at all in Ruby.
> Who knows what modules an object has mixed into it and who knows what singleton
> methods are defined on it.  A class, which is what people traditionally take for the
> type, is just one piece of an object's identity.

Ill-formed thoughts on this:
a) Duck-Typing FTW
b) Even Google buys duck-typing, albeit in a more formalized way:
http://golang.org/doc/go_lang_faq.html#inheritance