It doesn't matter if it sounds unintuitive to you right now, eventually if you keep using it, the word will stick. duck! is a nice name, so I'm fine with the idea.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, JimBob <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > >I was talking to Walter about Kenji's adaptTo. We both think it's a very > >powerful enabler, but adaptTo is a bland name. After discussing a few > >marketing strategies, I proposed "duck". It's short, simple, and evokes > >"duck typing". > > > > class C > > { > > int draw(){ return 10; } > > } > > interface Drawable > > { > > long draw(); > > } > > ... > > auto c = new C; > > auto d = duck!Drawable(c); // awes > > > > Kenji, I'll be looking forward to your submission :o). Would be great to > > allow structs to duck, too! > > duck doesnt convey much meaning imo so.. why not "adapt!" > > Ties in with the Adaptor design pattern.. which i'm guessing is what it > actualy does. > > >
