duck!

[so]

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.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:

> On 2010-10-16 14:32:10 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound2 at 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/