How to ducktype a Hash?

ruby-talk
1

Richard Kilmer [mailto:rich@infoether.com] :

Oops...sorry...you are right...it would have to be:

  f.{Array}['rich']

to make it explicit that you are grouping the {} with the
method name. This is only an issue for the operator'ish methods
because methods require the dot in them already.

Maybe:

  f<Array>['rich']
  f.<Person>[firstname]

It's ugly enough to discourage its use, but it also calls to mind the
syntax for C++ templates (for good or ill) while not being
currently-legal Ruby.

-austin

···

--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com

2

Hi --

···

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Austin Ziegler wrote:

Richard Kilmer [mailto:rich@infoether.com] :
> Oops...sorry...you are right...it would have to be:
>
> f.{Array}['rich']
>
> to make it explicit that you are grouping the {} with the
> method name. This is only an issue for the operator'ish methods
> because methods require the dot in them already.

Maybe:

  f<Array>['rich']
  f.<Person>[firstname]

It's ugly enough to discourage its use, but it also calls to mind the
syntax for C++ templates (for good or ill) while not being
currently-legal Ruby.

I think it has to be assumed that if Matz adds any type-related stuff,
it will get very heavy use, ugly or not. Luckily there's little or no
precedent for Matz adding ugly stuff :slight_smile: but I think this is a case
where people who want to use it are not going to be deterred by how it
looks, so I wouldn't want to rely on that effect.

David

--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net