duck typing assert

Prasad, Ramit ramit.prasad at
Fri Nov 9 18:37:29 CET 2012

Andriy Kornatskyy wrote:
> Thank you for all comments.
> > It makes very good sense to say:
> >
> > duckmatch(IFoo).compare(Foo)
> Since we do duck match of IFoo... but there is no `duck match`, there is `duck test`. I believe instead of
> `compare` is more readable with `equals`. Than it is more from mathematics - precise answer... that you can not
> guarantee at all in dynamic programming language. So it false to use such wording to reflect this check. We can
> only make an assumption that one looks like the other (similar)... with some limitation of cause...
> understanding what is `duck test`.
> The intent is to make such language `construct` so it reads as English sentence that make sense, and not
> mandatory `pythonic` way (readability counts, java smokes aside).
> is_similar(Foo).to(IFoo) # <= but we lost `duck test` sense here?
> Words `looks` and `like` are coming from duck test and point also direction:
> # 1
> looks(Foo).like(IFoo, notice=['__len__'], ignore_funcs=['foo'], ignore_argspec['bar'])
> English sentence equivalent: if functions in Foo looks like one in IFoo than, probably, IFoo can be replaced
> with Foo; notice to check __len__, it is safe to ignore function `foo` and arguments passed to `bar`.
> # 2
> looks(Foo, notice=['__len__'], ignore_funcs=['foo'], ignore_argspec['bar']).like(IFoo)
> English sentence equivalent: while looking at Foo notice to check `__len__`, it is safe to ignore function `foo`
> and arguments passed to `bar`, than probably it like IFoo.

What about?

duck(Foo).equivalent_to(IFoo, <kwargs>) 
duck(Foo).matches(IFoo, <kwargs>)

This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at  

More information about the Python-list mailing list