From: "Mills Thomas (app1tam)" <app1tam@...>
Date: 2003-08-09T00:33:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Ducktype, right?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dblack@superlink.net [mailto:dblack@superlink.net] 
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 11:00 AM
> To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: Ducktype, right?
> 
> >
> > ### in Ruby
> > yourRobot.quack if ducktype(yourRobot, duckness)
> > duckHerder.buy(myRobot) if ducktype(myRobot, duckness)
> 
> (I'm not sure I'd file the second example under "duck typing" 
> (since it's argument-checking rather than object capability 
> checking), but you could probably come up with a method name 
> that was a superset of both :-)
> 

I guess I'm not sure what duck typing is, then.  My example was assuming I
was using the original method from my first post.  Thus, duckness is a list
of ducky methods.  My second example was selling myRobot to a duckHerder
since, for all intents and purposes, myRobot acts like a duck.  The
duckHerder would also consider myRobot to be a duck, assuming we agreed on
duckness.  I thought that was duck-typing.

Drew