From: Chad Fowler <chad@...>
Date: 2003-11-21T07:40:14+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

# 
# In summary, "interface checking" (not static type checking we had seen
# before) is a good thing.  But I'm not sure it's good enough to put in
# the future Ruby, where API document might help, and where we have two
# challenges above.
# 


matz, how do you define "interface"?  In sean's case, class and/or module 
were sufficient to define interface.  This is majorly what I take issue 
with.  If "interface" is really a collection of "respond_to?" 
requirements, then I can start to stomach the idea of it being added to 
Ruby (I believe you were proposing something similar in your RubyConf 
presentation).  Have a look at Sean's RCR at RubyGarden.  It includes the 
following:

<sean>
class MyClass
  end

The above class implicity declares "I implement the MyClass interface." 
Pretty simple.
</sean>

He goes on to say the same re: inheritance and module inclusion.

Do you consider these to define "interface"?  I don't.

Thanks,
Chad