Don, el 21 de diciembre a las 09:20 me escribiste: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing#Structural_type_systems > > That Wikipedia page doesn't any make sense to me. Is that *really* > what duck typing is? If so, it's a complete misnomer. Because it's > totally different to "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, > etc". > If it looks like a duck now, but *didn't* look like a duck three > minutes ago, you can be pretty sure it's NOT a duck! > > Whereas what it calls "structural typing" follows the duck rule > perfectly. There is no reasoning on that page as to why duck typing > is restricted to dynamic languages. > > There's far too much ideology in that page, it ought to get flagged > as inappropriate. Eg this line near the top: > > "Users of statically typed languages new to dynamically typed > languages are usually tempted to .."
I think Wikipedia talks about what the meaning of the term is commonly used, maybe duck typing is not too accurate, but I think most people use the term for dynamically typed languages. I don't think people differentiate between what Wikipedia defines as duck typing and structural typing, though, I think people usually say duck typing to both. Anyway, if you *really* think Wikipedia is wrong, you can fix it or at least mention it in the discussion page[1], that's what Wikipedia is all about :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duck_typing -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ... los cuales son susceptibles a una creciente variedad de ataques previsibles, tales como desbordamiento del tampón, falsificación de parámetros, ... -- Stealth - ISS LLC - Seguridad de IT
