Hi --

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Greg McIntyre wrote:

> > So I have implicity "defined" a duck type without ever making a Duck
> > class. In Java I would need a class or an interface or something, but
> > in Ruby that's all behond the scenes.
>
> Er... in this example you have an object of class String with an extra
> method. IMO, this is still of class String. I don't address singleton
> methods in the lecture. Should I? I've never used them and I very rarely
> see others using them. Are they that important to be included in a quick
> intro of Ruby?

I think the underlying principle -- that the capacity of an object
does not depend on its historical class (which is at the heart of the
"duck typing" thing and the characteristic downplaying of type in
Ruby) -- is important and also conveys a lot of the flavor of the
language.  So I'd root for saying something about it if you can
without feeling like you're losing the forward motion of the overview.

And of course if you mention class methods, you've mentioned singleton
methods :-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav