Is duck-typing misnamed?
ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN
dvl at psu.edu
Sat Aug 27 19:28:09 EDT 2016
Your response is appreciated. I just thought I'd comment a little more on the
script:
Woman: I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch!
V: ehh... but you are dressed like one.
W: They dressed me up like this!
All: naah no we didn't... no.
W: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
(V lifts up carrot)
V: Well?
P1: Well we did do the nose
V: The nose?
P1: ...And the hat, but she is a witch!
They took a woman who originally, I think we might agree, was not a witch,
and they added features that were understood to be part of the protocol
for witchiness.
I think this is very much like me defining methods __iter__ and __next__
and voila, I've turned something into an iterator by witch -- er.. duck-typing!
Perhaps she inherited her weight from her latent duckness.
Thoughts?
Roger Christman
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 06:27 PM, python-list at python.org wrote:
>
On 26Aug2016 19:58, ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN <dvl at psu.edu> wrote:
>>"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,... "
>>so there is indeed precedence for this so-called 'duck typing'
>>
>>but wouldn't it be more Pythonic to call this 'witch typing'?
>>"How do you know she is a witch?"
>>"She looks like one."
>>etc.
>>
>>I do grant that ultimately, the duck does come into play, since the witch
>>weighs the same as a duck.
>
>I disagree. They want to burn her because she's supposedly a witch, but the
>scientific test was that she weighed as much as a duck. So I think your second
>example is also duck typing: functioning like a duck.
>
>Cheers,
>Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au>
>
>
>
More information about the Python-list
mailing list