------art_11022_12187976.1175605786866
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

2007/4/3, David A. Black <dblack / wobblini.net>:
>
> >Hi --
>
> >I can see your point, but I think duck typing is better illustrated
> >with examples that avoid the word "duck" in any form.  The reason is
> >that if you have a Duck class and some other class, and a_duck and
> >a_fake_duck, you're basically saying that there's one class that
> >*really* represents the type, and others that sort of emulate or
> >imitate it.  It's probably better to be even-handed about it: there
> >are, say, two objects, and the "duck" abstraction applies equally to
> >both.
> >
> >
> >David


I see what you mean. I will adapt the example with your suggestion in a next
release.

Thanks for your feedback.

Chauk-Mean.

http://selfreflexion.free.fr/

------art_11022_12187976.1175605786866--