I won’t carry on this thread for much longer, because I don’t want to
develop another monster on this topic. But I’ll refine my definition, as
while criticising you for abusing a definition, I abused “scoping”. So, to
refine my point, “duck-typing” works on the scale of an instance and a
message, not on the scale of a class and a signature. In other words, using
“duck similarity” really should imply that two individual objects understand
the one message, not the same set of messages, as your context implied - the
context made us understand what you were on about, not your abduction of
“duck-signature”. In yet another group of words, leave the damned ducks
alone.
Its rabbit season.
David
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~naseby/
···
-----Original Message-----
From: T. Onoma [mailto:transami@runbox.com]
Your last statement undoubtedly has merit, but keep in mind
that variables are
objects in Ruby and objects are as they are for the classes
that constitue
them, even if they are anonymous, which is really the key to this.