What's all this arguing about anyway? import std.conv : duck;
alias duck as; alias duck adaptTo; Done deal. On 10/16/10, Jimmy Cao <jcao...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/ >> >
