Andrei Alexandrescu, el 16 de octubre a las 19:19 me escribiste: > >I hate myself, I just keep replying when I know this matter is closed, > >if both you and Andrei like something, is a dead end for any > >alternatives... > > > >Well, at least I will be able to say "I tried"... > > How about this: we call "adapt" the strict adaptation of one > interface to another and "ducktype" the loose adaptation that might > fail dynamically. Would that float your boat?
I don't find it ideal, but it's definitely better. What I don't get is what the purpose/use of "ducktype" in D. And why do you even have to pass a type to ducktype? If you aren't certain if the object implements a function or not, that's not really duck-typing either, that's just dynamic typing and in that case, why do you even bother to specify an interface? I really don't see a point to it... -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- at ease, eating well (no more microwave dinners and saturated fats), a patient better driver, a safer car (baby smiling in back seat), sleeping well (no bad dreams), no paranoia,