"itsme213" <itsme213 / hotmail.com> wrote

> Then, in:
> def heat (x /*type_pattern_with_vars*/ )
> ... type_pattern_with_vars could convey, via not-yet-determined syntax,
the
> following information:
> - arg x must support #min, #max
> - x.min() is used as the *lo* var in #heat
> - x.max() is used as the *hi* var in #heat
> - x.cool() is used as the *onHot* var in #heat

x.cool is called VIA the *onHot* var in #heat

> - x.explode() is used as the *tooHot* var in #heat

x.explode is called VIA the *tooHot* var in #heat

> That would make the signature very informative. And it is all still based
on
> duck-ish respond_to? semantics rather than on classes. It would *not*
> duplicate any work since the implementer of route() would *not* have to do
> any the following:
>     lo = x.min()
>     hi = x.max()
>     onHot = x.method(:cool)
>     tooHot = x.method(:explode)

Correct.