Paul Sanchez <paul.NO / SPAM.argelfraster.org> wrote:
> I think you're making the mistake of equating objects and object 
> references.  Objects have a specific type, and the type of an object 

No.  I'm only talking about the definition of duck typing.  Under this
definition, the same object can be considered of type Pig or type Duck
in different contexts, as far as my understanding goes.  The
alternative would be to consider it a PigDuck i.e. an overlapping type
(like in multiple-inheritence) that can pass for either a pig or duck.

As far as objects (not variables) actually changing their class, check
this out:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/128982

The fact is, it doesn't really matter, if one is simply content with
duck typing.  :-)

Cheers,
Navin.