I think it's safe to say this is pretty much duck-typing in D (?) So then, if duck! is used, it puts emphasis on what the function allows D to do (duck-typing), while if as! is used, it sounds more intuitive (kinda like ".respond_to?" in Ruby) .
So going with my previous statement, if you keep using duck!, or adaptTo!, or whatever this becomes, it will eventually stick and will sound intuitive no matter what. In that way, I think as! is not necessarily such a good choice. Also, I really agree with Kagamin and Walter's argument, that simply the name "duck!" would raise awareness for this features. 2010/10/16 so <s...@so.do> > 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/ >
