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@python.org wrote: > On 26Aug2016 19:58, ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN <d...@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 <c...@zip.com.au> > > > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
