On Jul 21, 2008, at 6:55 AM, David A. Black wrote:

> I think duck typing is a separate matter from the question of the
> naming of a method, though. I wouldn't want objects that can't reverse
> themselves to respond to 'reverse', even for the sake of duck typing.

Interesting.  Would you wan [].reverse to fail because it can't  
reverse itself?

Ok, bad example that fails to move the discussion forward.  Sorry, I  
just couldn't resist.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich
-- jim.weirich / gmail.com