On Friday 21 November 2003 06:32 am, Martin DeMello wrote:
> Sean O'Dell <sean / celsoft.com> wrote:
> > Normal Ruby types are so dynamic, I don't think you could ever base type
> > checking on them.  Not without excessive runtime overhead.  I could be
> > wrong, but that just seems like such a dark, ugly alleyway.  Types, as
> > required by method parameters in my proposal, would be interface names,
> > and objects passed to those methods must completely fulfill the interface
> > required.
>
> Ah, okay. That does sound like a promising approach, particularly since
> you can annotate existing ruby objects with interface names.

Yes, precisely, and in-fact Matz could add cheap, pre-defined interface tags 
for all of the built-in Ruby types.  I wouldn't even give them an interface 
description for people to look at; the basic types could just be there 
magically.

	Sean O'Dell