From: Jim Weirich <jweirich@...>
Date: 2003-09-13T11:35:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Mthod redefinition

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 20:44, Meino Christian Cramer wrote:
>  Would it be correct if I would say: Duck typing is more or less
>  equal to providing the code for calling the "same" method of
>  different signatures be hand while C++ and other OOP-languages will
>  do this automagically while compiling the code ?

I would disagree with this point of view.  I think it misses the point
of duck typing.  Duck typing has more to do with how polymorphism is
handled rather than method overloading is handled.

I started a separate thread to discuss it (see Duck Typing), so I won't
repeat myself here.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich       jweirich@one.net      http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, 
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)