From: aero6dof@... (Alan Chen) Date: 2003-11-22T04:57:26+09:00 Subject: Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?) Peter wrote in message news:... > Anyway, I'm not contesting that The Ruby Way works. But nobody showed > evidence that The Ruby Way With Optional Interface Checking doesn't work > better, though people tried based on flaws of other languages. One problem that I can see is that Optional Interface Check could impose a significant cost on those who aren't interested in type-checking. Primarily, integrating type-checking code with non-type-checking code could be a burden. I really don't want to be browsing through ruby code libraries thinking "is this a type-checked library?" Or worse, downloading some ruby code only to find that it didn't mention that type checking was a core approach of the library. For these reasons, I think the burden should be on the type-checking implementors to be able to disable the checking with no or few ill effects. Hmm, I guess this comment applies slightly more to interface/inheritance checking systems instead of "method signature" based systems. Cheers -alan