duck!

[Andrej Mitrovic]

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 <jcao219 at 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 <so at 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.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/
>>
>