"Lutger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Yigal Chripun wrote: >> >> The .Net implementation isn't perfect of course and has a few issues >> that should be resolved, one of these is the problem with using >> operators. requiring interfaces by itself isn't the problem though. The >> only drawback in this case is verbosity which isn't really a big deal >> for this. > > The drawback is not verbosity but lack of structural typing. Suppose some > library has code that can be parametrized by IFoo and I have another > library > with a type that implements IBar, which satisfies IFoo but not explicitly > so. Then what? Unless I have totally misunderstood .NET generics, I have > to > create some proxy object for IBar that implements IFoo just to satisfy the > strong type checking of .NET generics. You could make the argument that > this > 'inconvenience' is a good thing, but I do think it is a bit more of a > drawback than just increased verbosity.
It sounds like you're talking about duck typing?
