Reading wikipedia, definition and the examples exactly match adaptTo.
Before naming it, i think we should first be clear about if it is really
duck-typing or not.
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:44:51 +0300, Michel Fortin
<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
On 2010-10-16 14:32:10 -0400, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com>
said:
Nobody is going to start using D because it has a function *named*
duck.
Maybe not, but it will raise awareness that "D has duck typing".
Otherwise, I guarantee you that people will argue that "I need duck
typing, and Z has it and D does not" if it is named adaptTo.
The problem is that D doesn't have duck-typing. The adapter pattern
isn't duck-typing. Duck-typing is when you have an object and can call a
'quack' function on it and if there's no 'quack' function you get a
runtime error.
It's like saying D is a dynamic language, people will know you're
bullshitting them.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
