David A. Black ha scritto:

>>But In case we had optional typing I'd prefer to see types as full 
>>predicates, instead of simple is_a? checks.
> 
> 
> They would have to be, because is_a? doesn't tell you about the
> object's type, just its class/module hierarchy.  
> 
> And then, when a typing system becomes complicated enough, with enough
> granularity to even begin to hint at the possibilities embodied in
> Ruby objects, it will start to converge on what was there all along
> anyway -- dynamism, uncertainty, change -- and will be superfluous :-)
> 

I guess the type theorist out there would not agree (i.e. I'm told is 
easy to define Odd or Prime types in haskell). And even if agree that it 
may converge on what we have now, I still see a great value in crash 
early behaviour and documentation.
I'm not the one to revolutionize ruby, I just want a slight enhancement :)