On Sunday 14 December 2003 09:51 pm, David Naseby wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: T. Onoma [mailto:transami / runbox.com]
> >
> > of Ruby is an Elitist attitude. This Duck Typing issue is a good
> > example of
> > what I'm talking about. I don't understad why people feel it is
> > neccessary to
> > CONTROL the use of this term.
>
> People generally CONTROL the incorrect usage of any expression. "Duck
> similarity" is a ridiculous kidnapping of a term, when really you meant an
> interface inheritence. Duck-typing is variable scoped, not class scoped: it
> answers the question "Can the current variable understand the message
> #some_message?".

Your last statement undoubtedly has merit, but keep in mind that variables are 
objects in Ruby and objects are as they are for the classes that constitue 
them, even if they are anonymous, which is really the key to this.

Also I think you highlight one of my points. You imply by kidnapping that 
someone owns the definitive rights to the "duck" term. Furthermore, 
ridiculous means laughable -- and actually I hope you are laughing. It's fun 
to laugh. That's why the word duck exists here, becuase its fun! Would you 
have rather I been formally serious and said "run-time type"? You see, my 
meaning was conveyed, and thus I dispute that it was "incorrect".

By the way, I did not just mean interface inheritence. I had generalized my 
inquery quite beyond that, hence my Original Question about inplace 
assignment.

-- 
T.