91 lines
No EOL
3.6 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
3.6 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "aa72d773-765e-42bb-bf5b-f070a97f5884"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:50+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Duck typing\n"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2022-12-21T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:50+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2022\/12\/21\/duck-typing",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.<\/p>\n\n<p>If I pass a parameter into a function, as long as it works with the code within the function - it is of the correct type and has the expected properties and methods - it will work, although nothing is enforcing that the correct thing is passed in.<\/p>\n\n<p>If not, you'd get an error that the method or property doesn't exist when trying to invoke or access it.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is the opposite of strict typing, where you'd get a Type error if you passed the wrong thing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Both are valid approaches, though I prefer to use types and get specific error messages and leverage tools like static analysis, which work better the more it understands your code.<\/p>\n\n<p>In particular when writing and using open-source code that anyone can use however they like, I'd suggest leveraging types and type-checking, but it depends on what you, your team or your community prefer.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.<\/p>\n\n<p>If I pass a parameter into a function, as long as it works with the code within the function - it is of the correct type and has the expected properties and methods - it will work, although nothing is enforcing that the correct thing is passed in.<\/p>\n\n<p>If not, you'd get an error that the method or property doesn't exist when trying to invoke or access it.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is the opposite of strict typing, where you'd get a Type error if you passed the wrong thing.<\/p>\n\n<p>Both are valid approaches, though I prefer to use types and get specific error messages and leverage tools like static analysis, which work better the more it understands your code.<\/p>\n\n<p>In particular when writing and using open-source code that anyone can use however they like, I'd suggest leveraging types and type-checking, but it depends on what you, your team or your community prefer.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |