duck!

[kenji hara]

'Duck Typing' is a very broad concept.
adaptTo is supported only in part.

For example, you can not adapt class from class.
It has semantic problem of object states, so I never support it.
----
// this is invalid example
class C{ draw(){ return 10; } }
class X{ draw(){ return value; } int value; }
X x = adaptTo!X(new C());
// x.value == ??, cannot provide generally.
----

If you call it a duck, it will tell a lie!

Kenji Hara.

2010/10/17 Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>> Walter and you have the same convoluted brain, I can understand why he
>> instantly recognize it ;)
>
>
>
>> I already made my point, it make no sense to keep defending my position
>> since, evidently, is a pure subjective matter.
>
> It certainly is a glorious bikeshed.
>
>> I just think auto a_bird = duck!Bird(a_duck) is not obvious at all
>> compared to auto a_bird = adapt!Bird(a_duck). I even think adaptTo is
>> even cleaner, and I tend to hate long names, specially when camelCase is
>> involved, but since you didn't like it I, as others, suggested simply
>> adapt). If one could write auto a_bird = adapt!a_duck(Bird), adapt would
>> be as clear as adaptTo is with the current syntax. With adaptTo!Type you
>> even have the precedent of the to!Type template, so it seems like a nice
>> extension.
>
> Microsoft has a tradition of naming their products after what they do:
> Windows, Word, Office, etc. It's obvious why they do it, and it works, but
> it is just so generic and dull.
>
> Being the upstart language, D needs now and then something a little more
> attention-getting than generic terms. The "duck" feature is important for
> two reasons:
>
> 1. duck typing is all the rage now
>
> 2. being able to implement duck typing as a library feature (rather than a
> language one) is a great demonstration of what D can do
>
> Label it "adaptTo" and few will even notice it. Label it "duck" and people
> will click on the link to see what it does. It's important that people
> notice that D has these things, and "duck" helps with that.
>
> I've been in this business a long time, and while you'd think that
> programmers are above "what's in a name", we are just like everyone else. A
> catchy name gets results. Borland, for example, added a trivial and boring
> feature to their linker, called it "smart linking", and managed to get an
> unbelievable amount of hoopla from the computer press out of it. They did it
> again with another feature they called "zoom".
>
> Which blog article would you click on? "Interface Adapter for D" or "Duck
> Typing for D"?
>
> "duck" is a great name for the feature. It's short & sweet, fits right in
> with the popularity of duck typing, stands out, isn't boring, etc. Heck, as
> proof, look at all the interest in this thread!!
>