Ryan King wrote:
> 
> On 2002.10.01, Dave Thomas <Dave / PragmaticProgrammer.com> wrote:
> > Ruby types are not releated to classes. They're related to object
> > protocols (the infamous Duck Typing). That's what gives Ruby much of
> > its appeal. Testing for classes is really very poor style, and
> > artificially constrains the users of your code.
> 
> I can see how type checks like the above would be restrictive,
> but I can't find anything about "Duck Typing" on Google.

I take it they mean the old saying "If it walks like a duck, talks like
a duck...", but I cannot be totally sure.

Look at [ruby-talk:8926] and similar postings.

-- 
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_    _~_    __[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]___/~
 ))\_student_/((  \__d L b__/  NTNU - graduate engineering - 5. year  )
( \__\_õüõß/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
 \____/_öß\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)