On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 twifkak / comcast.net wrote:

>> this shows, right up front in the method, that the method takes an argument
>> 'x' which must respond to 'upcase', and 'downcase'.  an exception is thrown
>> if something that does not respond to both these methods is passed in:
> Not entirely true... The argument 'x' must also respond to whatever
> parseargs wants from it (respond_to?, I assume), whatever the 'pa.x' method
> wants from it (well, nothing, I assume), and whatever 'p' wants from it
> (to_s, I assume).

sure - everything in :ducktype=>list AND what parseargs needs - quite true.

>
>> note that this could be parsed via rdoc quite easily.
> Only if it's an Array literal being passed to parseargs.

huh?

> Ara, I'm not trying to dismiss the effort you put into parseargs, or its
> usefulness in pulling off programming by contract (especially in comparison
> to the alternatives).

oh but you should! ;-)  it's marked 'experimental' for at least a couple of
reasons and is just an idea i'm throwing out there to see what comes back.
for the record: by no means am i suggesting it's a completely baked idea.

we're all friends here so i assume people will offer up any criticisms come to
mind.

> Rather, I'm trying to point out that Ruby's so flexible that it makes it
> very difficult to do. I'm not arguing against duck typing -- enough people
> have done that already, plus I like it. However, I still have qualms about
> using Ruby in the enterprise (read: with a bunch of programmers who aren't
> me), and duck typing is one of the reasons why.

i can see that.

cheers.


-a
-- 
===============================================================================
| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| phone :: 303.497.6469
| My religion is very simple.  My religion is kindness.
| --Tenzin Gyatso
===============================================================================