Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:31:34 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
If I google for "adapt for D" I'll get a hopeless mess of irrelevant
links. "duck typing for D" should be much better. Remember that google
ranks pages by relevance, and searching for "duck" will give higher
ranking for pages with "duck" in the url, title, headings, etc. That's
just what we want.
And it should come up with the page on digitalmars.com titled 'duck
typing in D' which describes how to use templates or the adaptTo type to
achieve duck typing.
When writing fiction, it's a good idea to constantly shift which words used to
describe something. But when writing tech manuals, and when making things search
engine friendly, it pays to use a single term and use it consistently.
For example, once upon a time I read some article on arrays, and it variously
referred to the array "elements", "entries", and "values". Really, that sucked,
as the reader was left being not quite sure if they meant the same thing or not.
If you expect people to search for "duck typing" (and I do) then why stick
another level of indirection? Call it a "duck". When you find yourself
constantly saying "duck typing: see adaptTo", then you named it wrong.
