From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2003-11-21T15:12:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?)

Now some for some rally crazy cross thought. First a complete interface 
definition substantiated on an existent class.

   type :IOInteface, *(IO.methods & 
                             IO.private_methods &
                             IO.protected_methods)

   def ameth(x)
     IOInterface x
     #---
     x.read
   end

now Lets use theoretical duck_signs with euphoria. will we be happy quackers?

   type :big4, '>', 'to_i', 'succ' do |x|
     x > 4
   end

   def ameth(x)
     big4 x
     #---
     puts x.succ
   end

   method(:ameth).duck_signature  # => [ [ 'succ' ] ]
   method(:big4).duck_signature  # => Holy Quack'n Ducks, Batman!

Consider:

  def type(tname, *resp, &check)
     define_method(tname) do |*v|
� � � � if $_tc
� � � � � unless v.all? { |y| resp.all? { |z| y.send(:respond_to?, z) } }
� � � � � � raise TypeError, "#{v}"
� � � � � end
� � � � � unless v.all? { |y| check.call(y) }
� � � � � � raise TypeError, "#{v}"
� � � � � end
� � � � end
� � � � return *v
� � � end
  end

can it be done?
1) infinite arity? hmm...have to be considered parameter of array?
2) conditioned (on global) how to signify signiture is conditional?
3) respond_to('all?')  No, not *really* array try |y|?
4) y.send, of course, but means y.respond_to?, of course, but means y.z?
5) so...  '>', 'to_i', 'succ', i guess?

my head hurts :(  i fear godel will soon appear and slap my bitch funny.

BUT wait! There is an even simplier problem!!!!!......(see next post)

-t0