>-----Original Message-----
>From: T. Onoma [mailto:transami / runbox.com]

>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.

I won't carry on this thread for much longer, because I don't want to
develop another monster on this topic. But I'll refine my definition, as
while criticising you for abusing a definition, I abused "scoping". So, to
refine my point, "duck-typing" works on the scale of an instance and a
message, not on the scale of a class and a signature. In other words, using
"duck similarity" really should imply that two individual objects understand
the one message, not the same set of messages, as your context implied - the
context made us understand what you were on about, not your abduction of
"duck-signature". In yet another group of words, leave the damned ducks
alone.

Its rabbit season.

David
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~naseby/