I have an existing interface that I'm trying to define using MIDL 3.0. One of it's methods has this C++ signature:
HRESULT GetArray(struct FOO** outArray, uint32_t* outSize);
I tried translating this to IDL like so:
namespace Examples {
struct Foo {
Int32 n1;
Int32 n2;
};
interface IExample {
void GetArray(out Foo[] array);
}
}
However, the resulting C++/WinRT ABI has the parameters in the opposite order:
template <> struct abi<Examples::IExample>{ struct type : IInspectable
{
virtual HRESULT __stdcall GetArray(uint32_t* __arraySize, struct struct_Examples_Foo** array) noexcept = 0;
};};
This does make sense considering that is the recommended order. Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to change the parameter order of the existing interface. Instead, I figured I might be able to work around it using "classic" style:
namespace Examples {
[uuid("d7675bdc-7b6e-4936-a4a0-f113c1a3ef70"), version(1)]
interface IExample {
HRESULT GetArray(
[out, size_is(, *size)] Foo** array,
[out] unsigned long* size
);
}
}
But, this is rejected by the MIDL compiler:
MIDL4058: [msg]The size parameter of an array parameter must appear directly before the array parameter. [context]size
How do I write this interface in IDL in such a way that results in the correct ABI?
WinRT has a strict ABI definition for the ordering of array parameters, and as you have discovered it is (size, pointer) and not the other way around. There is no way to change this, since all the projections (such as .NET, JavaScript, and C++/CX) expect this order and would fail catastrophically if passed in the wrong order.
If you cannot change the ordering, can you write a wrapper class that exposes the correct ordering and simply forwards the calls onto your existing code with the parameters reversed?
Failing that, there is another way to support this if you only care about C++ (and maybe C# clients). That is, rather than defining a WinRT interface for this method, you can define a classic-COM interface and have your WinRT object implement that interface as well. Then the clients of your WinRT object QI for that COM interface and can pass the arguments in the order you require.
Related
For some USTRUCT structs within UnrealEngine, type traits TStructOpsTypeTraits<T> are defined. These provide a list of bools (encapsulated in an enumeration) about the implemented capabilities of struct T.
What is the usage of those traits?
When I should define those traits for my custom USTRUCTs within my project?
*Example usage from within the Engine:
struct TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2
{
enum
{
WithZeroConstructor = false, // struct can be constructed as a valid object by filling its memory footprint with zeroes.
WithNoInitConstructor = false, // struct has a constructor which takes an EForceInit parameter which will force the constructor to perform initialization, where the default constructor performs 'uninitialization'.
WithNoDestructor = false, // struct will not have its destructor called when it is destroyed.
WithCopy = !TIsPODType<CPPSTRUCT>::Value, // struct can be copied via its copy assignment operator.
// ...
}
}
Which is used like
template<>
struct TStructOpsTypeTraits<FGameplayEffectContextHandle> : public TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2<FGameplayEffectContextHandle>
{
enum
{
WithCopy = true, // Necessary so that TSharedPtr<FGameplayEffectContext> Data is copied around
WithNetSerializer = true,
WithIdenticalViaEquality = true,
};
};
It seems that traits are used for USTRUCTs that are used in blueprints; and that they are required for structs which have a NetSerialize() function. I made spot checks:
WithIdenticalViaEquality -> UScriptStruct::HasIdentical() -> EStructFlags::STRUCT_IdenticalNative is used only in ::IdenticalHelper() which is intended for Blueprints
EStructFlags::STRUCT_NetSerializeNative is used for error messages (when the structs are used in blueprints) and in FObjectReplicator and FRepLayout, where this trait is required to be present for custom property replication
the description of TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 seems to tell, that these traits are only important, when the USTRUCTs are used within blueprints
type traits to cover the custom aspects of a script struct
UnrealEngine defines also a number of specialized traits for its container classes (e.g. TTypeTraitsBase). A comparison with c++ type_traits might be meaningful.
Many of the features available "out-of-the-box" in Unreal Engine 4 (e.g. replication, initialization, serialization, etc.) rely on information specific to each class. This allows different classes to - for example - customize how to serialize their own data.
For classes inheriting from the base UObject class, all the needed information are stored into properties or returned by overridable methods. For example, if you want to customize how your UObject-derived class manages serialization, you can simply override its virtual Serialize() method. This is enough for UE4 to be able to invoke your custom implementation when it need to serialize an instance of your class.
The problem with structs in UE4, is that they don't inherit from a common base class/interface. So UE4 doesn't have any pre-declare property or method to call. Trying to call an undeclared method will of course cause a compilation error in C++. Following the previous example on the custom serialization - UE4 can't in general invoke the Serialize() method on structs because some/most of them will not have such method and the compiler will report it as an error.
TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is the solution to the above problem. You declare a specialization of it for your custom structs to inform UE4 of which methods are available. When done, using a mix of template meta-programming and auto-generated code, UE4 will be able to call such methods to provide again out-of-the-box services or allow you to customize default behaviors. For example, declaring WithSerializer = true you're informing UE4 that your struct has a custom Serialize() method and so UE4 will be able to automatically call it every time it needs to serialize an instance of your struct.
TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is not limited to structs used with Blueprints, but is used also with USTRUCT() used in C++.
On when to use it, you need to declare a custom specialization of TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 when the default behavior of UE4 on your structure is not what you want (e.g. you want to serialize its data in a different way while the default implementation serializes all the not-transient UPROPERTY() using "standard" formats).
While the "form" is similar, the scope of TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is different than C++ type_traits: type_traits is used by the compiler to inform the program/programmer about platform characteristics. TStructOpsTypeTraitsBase2 is used by the programmer to inform UE4 about available "extra" features of a custom struct.
In C# there's a quite huge difference between interfaces and classes. Indeed, a class represents a reference-type, so that we can actually create objects modeled on that class, while interfaces are meant to be contracts that a class sign to in order to ensure the existence of a certain behavior. In particular we can't create instances of interfaces.
The whole point with interfaces is to expose behavior. A class implements it by giving one explicit implementation of said behavior.
In that case, although interfaces may contain properties, most of the time we care about interfaces because of behavioral issues. So most of the type, interfaces are just contracts of behavior.
On TypeScript, on the other hand, I've seem something that made me quite uneasy, and in truth I've seen this more than once, which is the reason for this question.
In one tutorial I saw this:
export interface User {
name: string; // required with minimum 5 chracters
address?: {
street?: string; // required
postcode?: string;
}
}
But wait a minute. Why User is an interface? If we think like C#, User shouldn't be an interface. In truth, looking at it, it seems like we are defining the data type User, instead of a contract of behavior.
Thinking like we do in C#, the natural thing would be this:
export class User {
public name: string;
public address: Address;
}
export class Address {
public street: string;
public postcode: string;
}
But this thing of using interfaces like we do with classes, to just define a data type, rather than defining a contract of behavior, seems very common in TypeScript.
So what interfaces are meant for in TypeScript? Why do people use interfaces in TypeScript like we use clases in C#? How interfaces should be properly used in TypeScript: to establish contracts of behavior, or to define properties and object should have?
Consider that in Javascript, data is often exchanged as plain objects, often through JSON:
let data = JSON.parse(someString);
Let's say this data is an array of User objects, and we'll pass it to a function:
data.forEach(user => foo(user))
foo would be typed like this:
function foo(user: User) { ... }
But wait, at no point did we do new User! Should we? Should we have to write a class User and map all the data to it, even though the result would be exactly the same, an Object with properties? No, that would be madness just for the sake of satisfying the type system, but not change anything about the runtime. A simple interface which describes how the specific object is expected to look like (to "behave") is perfectly sufficient here.
I also came to Typescript from a C# background and have wondered the same things. I was thinking along the lines of POCOs (is POTO a thing?)
So what interfaces are meant for in TypeScript?
The Typescript Handbook seems to say that interfaces are meant for "defining contracts within your code".
Why do people use interfaces in TypeScript like we use classes in C#?
I agree with #deceze's answer here.
John Papa expands on the subject of classes and interfaces on his blog. He suggests that classes are best suited for "creating multiple new instances, using inheritance, [and] singleton objects". So, based on the intent of Typescript interfaces as described in the Typescript Handbook and one man's opinion, it would appear that classes are not necessary to establish contracts in Typescript. Instead, you should use interfaces. (Your C# senses will still be offended.)
Interfaces should be properly used in TypeScript: to establish contracts of behavior, or to define properties and object should have?
If I understand the question, you are asking if interfaces should establish contracts of behavior or contracts of structure. To this, I would answer: both. Typescript interfaces can still be used the same way interfaces are used in C# or Java (i.e. to describe the behavior of a class), but they also offer the ability to describe the structure of data.
Furthermore, my coworker got on me for using classes instead of interfaces because interfaces produce no code in the compiler.
Example:
This Typescript:
class Car implements ICar {
foo: string;
bar(): void {
}
}
interface ICar {
foo: string;
bar(): void;
}
produces this Javascript:
var Car = (function () {
function Car() {
}
Car.prototype.bar = function () {
};
return Car;
}());
Try it out
Interfaces in typescript are similar to interfaces in C# in that they both provide a contract. However opposed to C# interfaces which only contain methods typescript interfaces can also describe fields or properties that objects contain. Therefore they can also be used for things which are not directly possible with C# interfaces.
A major difference between interfaces and classes in typescript is that interfaces don't have a runtime representation and there won't be any code emitted for them. Interfaces are very broadly usable. For example you can use object literals to construct objects with satisfy an interface. Like:
let user: User = {
name: 'abc',
address: {
street: 'xyz',
},
};
Or you can assign any data objects (e.g. received through JSON parsing) to an interface (but your pre-checks should assert that it's really valid data). Therefore interfaces are very flexible for data.
On the other hand classes have a type associated at runtime to them and there is code generated. You can check the type at runtime with instanceof and there's a prototype chain set up. If you define User as a class it won't be a valid user unless you call the constructor function. And you can't just define any kind of suitable data to be a User. You would need to create a new instance and copy the properties over.
My personal rule of thumb:
If I'm dealing with pure data (of varying sources) I use interfaces
If I'm modelling something which has an identity and state (and probably attached methods to modify the state) I'm using a class.
How interfaces should be properly used in TypeScript: to establish contracts of behavior, or to define properties and object should have?
Interfaces in TypeScript are shape contracts, describing the expected structure of an object. If a value has a certain interface annotation, you expect it to be an object featuring the members defined in the interface. Members can be values or functions (methods). Generally, their behavior (function bodies) is not part of the contract. But you can specify if they are readonly or not.
So what interfaces are meant for in TypeScript? Why do people use interfaces in TypeScript like we use clases in C#?
Typescript interfaces can play the same role as C# interfaces if they are expected to be implemented by TypeScript classes.
But not only a class can implement an interface; any kind of value can:
interface HelloPrinter {
printHello(): void
}
The following object is not a class but nevertheless implements the interface:
{
printHello: () => console.log("hello")
}
Thus we can do
const o: HelloPrinter = {
printHello: () => console.log("hello")
}
and the TypeScript compiler won't complain.
The object implements our interface without forcing us to write a class.
Working with interfaces is more lightweight than working with (interfaces and) classes.
But if you need to know the type name (class/interface name) during runtime then classes are the right choice, because interface names are only known at compile time.
Using only the native deserialization mechanism, you cannot deserialize an instance of a specific class. You can only deserialize into a plain-old-javascript-object. Such objects can adhere to typescript interfaces but cannot be an instance of a class. If you need to deal with data that crosses a serialization boundary such as data expected from a webservice, use interfaces. If you need to generate new instances of such values yourself, just construct them literally or create a convenience function that returns them - objects that adhere to that interface.
A class can itself implement an interface, but it might get confusing if you expect to deal with both locally constructed class instances AND deserialized, reconstituted plain objects. You'd never be able to rely on the class-basis of the object and so there'd be no benefit of also defining it as a class for that exact purpose.
I've had success in creating a ServerProxy module responsible for sending code back and forth from a webservice - the webservice call and the returned result. If you're binding to knockout models or similar, you can have a class that encapsulates the ui-bound model with a constructor that knows how to lift a returned plain-old-javascript-object that adheres to the webservice's interface-only contract into an instance of your model class.
How does an assembler handle classes and objects when a programme is compiled? And how is this stored in RAM and the executable file?
At first, memory is allocated according to the class' size, for example 20 bytes. In these 20 bytes, all variables of the class are stored. But there are two problems:
How do pointers to classes work?
How does a called method know which object it belongs to?
Could you explain this to me? (If using example code, I prefer Objective-C, C++ and x86 Assembly)
The assembler has no clue what a class is, it only assembles machine code, which the occasional macro tossed in. For all intents and purposes a class is merly a struct with an optional vftable, with all the handling and class 'special features' (virtualism, polymorphism, inheiritanc etc) being done in the intermediate stage, when IR code is created. Memory would be allocated the same as a struct, variable, array or any other data 'blob' (statically or dynamically, taking alignment, const'ness and packing into account), except for the support code to handle stack & static based dtor unwinding(done again at the IR level), ctors, and static initialization(though static initialization can happen for more than class objects). I suggest you give the dragon book a read through (the first eight chapters would cover it), to get a clearer picture of how a compiler and assembler work, seeing as these things are not handled by the assembler, but by the compiler front and/or back ends, depending on how the compiler an its IL are structured.
(2) Member functions are rewritten by the compiler. Consider class A as follows.
class A {
int i;
public:
A () : i (0) { }
void f (int a, char *b) { i = a; }
}
Then what the compiler makes of A::f looks something like this (pseudocode):
void A::f (A * const this, int a, char *b) { this->i = a; }
Consider now a call to A::f.
A a;
a.f (25, "");
The compiler generates code similar to this (pseudocode):
A a;
A::f (&a, 25, "");
In other words, the compiler works the hidden this pointer into every non-static member function and each call receives a reference to the instance that it was called upon. This, in particular, means that you can invoke non-static member functions on NULL pointers.
A *a = NULL;
a->f (25, "");
The crash only occurs when you actually reference non-static class member variables.
The resulting crash report also illustrates the answer to question (1). In many cases, you'll not crash on address 0, but an offset of that. That offset corresponds to the offset that the accessed variable has in the memory layout the compiler chose for class A (in this case, many compilers will actually offset it with 0x0 and class A will in memory not be distinguishable from struct A { int i; };). Basically, pointers to classes are pointers to the equivalent C struct. Member functions are implemented as free functions taking an instance reference as first argument. All and any access checks with regard to public, protected and private members is done upfront by the compiler, the generated assembly has no clue about any of those concepts. In fact, early versions of C++ are said to have been sets of clever C macros.
The memory layout (typically) changes a bit when you have virtual functions.
I would like to pass an interface to a method signature which takes Object as its parameter, so I wonder about this question
public Stream GetViewStream(string viewName, object model, ControllerContext context)
instead of object I shall like to pass an interface Imodel, without modifying the signature. Is there a base class for interfaces?
Also in the new mvc2 is there a way to avoid controllercontext altogether?
I'd only answer the first question - Why there's no common base interface for all interfaces ?
First of all, there's no common pre-defined base interface for all interfaces, unlike the System.Object case. Explaining this can get very interesting.
Let us assume, you could have a common interface for all interfaces in the system. That means, all interfaces will need to force their implementations to provide implementation-details for that common base interface. In general, interface are used to give specific special behaviors to their concrete implementation classes. Obviously you only want to define an interface when you only know what to do and don't know HOW to do that. So, if you let there be a common base interface for all interface and force the implementations to expect them to provide details of how to do it - why would you want to do it ? What common task each class should do that varies from one another ?
Lets look at the other side of the coin, why we have System.object as base class of any .Net type - It is simple it gives you some methods that have COMMON implementation for any .Net type and for those methods that it might vary from type-to-type they have made it virtual ex: .ToString()
There's possibly no assumption of any
system-wide interface method which is
virtual/abstract to all its
implementations.
One common practice of using Interface is say, defining a particular behavior to any type. Like I'd have an interface IFlyable which will give Fly() to all types that implement IFlyable. This way I can play with any Flyable object regardless of its inheritance hierarchy coming into picture. I can write a method like this..
public void FlyTheObject(IFlyable flyingObject)
{
flyginObject.Fly();
}
It does not demand anything from the object but the implementation of the Fly() method.
EDIT
Additionally, All interfaces will resolve to Object because interfaces cannot be instantiated. The object is always of a concrete class that can be instantiated. This class may or may not implement your interface but as we know, any .Net type is ultimately based to System.Object, so you will be able to take the instance into an object type regardless of the fact if it implements a particular interface or not.
No, there is no base class for interfaces. Nor there is base interface for interfaces.
As for your second question (and partly first one) - what are actually you trying to do?
There is no base class for interfaces, but you can pass any interface variable e.g:
private IEnumerable<int> myInterfaceVariable = new List<int>();
to your method because by definition anything that is stored in that variable must be an instance of a class that inherits from the interface - therefore it must be an object.
The following compiles fine:
public class InterfaceAsObject
{
private IEnumerable<int> myInterfaceVariable = new List<int>();
private void CallDoSomething()
{
DoSomething(myInterfaceVariable);
}
private void DoSomething(object input)
{
}
}
Re 1, there is no base interface, but if I understand you correctly, you can achieve what I think you want by just passing your object that implements IModel via the model parameter and cast (and check!) the parameter to IModel. I use 'as' and check for null.
If you don't need total flexibility, a better way of doing this is to define the interface that the model parameter must support. If the specific objects support derived interfaces (e.g. IDerivedModel : IModel) this will work too.
Look up a text-book on polymorphism.
Can I specify interfaces when I declare a member?
After thinking about this question for a while, it occurred to me that a static-duck-typed language might actually work. Why can't predefined classes be bound to an interface at compile time? Example:
public interface IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod();
}
public class MyClass //Does not explicitly implement IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod() //But contains a compatible method definition
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, world!");
}
}
...
public void CallMyMethod(IMyInterface m)
{
m.MyMethod();
}
...
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj); // Automatically recognize that MyClass "fits"
// MyInterface, and force a type-cast.
Do you know of any languages that support such a feature? Would it be helpful in Java or C#? Is it fundamentally flawed in some way? I understand you could subclass MyClass and implement the interface or use the Adapter design pattern to accomplish the same thing, but those approaches just seem like unnecessary boilerplate code.
A brand new answer to this question, Go has exactly this feature. I think it's really cool & clever (though I'll be interested to see how it plays out in real life) and kudos on thinking of it.
As documented in the official documentation (as part of the Tour of Go, with example code):
Interfaces are implemented implicitly
A type implements an interface by implementing its methods. There is
no explicit declaration of intent, no "implements" keyword.
Implicit interfaces decouple the definition of an interface from its
implementation, which could then appear in any package without
prearrangement.
How about using templates in C++?
class IMyInterface // Inheritance from this is optional
{
public:
virtual void MyMethod() = 0;
}
class MyClass // Does not explicitly implement IMyInterface
{
public:
void MyMethod() // But contains a compatible method definition
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!" "\n";
}
}
template<typename MyInterface>
void CallMyMethod(MyInterface& m)
{
m.MyMethod(); // instantiation succeeds iff MyInterface has MyMethod
}
MyClass obj;
CallMyMethod(obj); // Automatically generate code with MyClass as
// MyInterface
I haven't actually compiled this code, but I believe it's workable and a pretty trivial C++-ization of the original proposed (but nonworking) code.
Statically-typed languages, by definition, check types at compile time, not run time. One of the obvious problems with the system described above is that the compiler is going to check types when the program is compiled, not at run time.
Now, you could build more intelligence into the compiler so it could derive types, rather than having the programmer explicitly declare types; the compiler might be able to see that MyClass implements a MyMethod() method, and handle this case accordingly, without the need to explicitly declare interfaces (as you suggest). Such a compiler could utilize type inference, such as Hindley-Milner.
Of course, some statically typed languages like Haskell already do something similar to what you suggest; the Haskell compiler is able to infer types (most of the time) without the need to explicitly declare them. But obviously, Java/C# don't have this ability.
I don't see the point. Why not be explicit that the class implements the interface and have done with it? Implementing the interface is what tells other programmers that this class is supposed to behave in the way that interface defines. Simply having the same name and signature on a method conveys no guarantees that the intent of the designer was to perform similar actions with the method. That may be, but why leave it up for interpretation (and misuse)?
The reason you can "get away" with this successfully in dynamic languages has more to do with TDD than with the language itself. In my opinion, if the language offers the facility to give these sorts of guidance to others who use/view the code, you should use it. It actually improves clarity and is worth the few extra characters. In the case where you don't have access to do this, then an Adapter serves the same purpose of explicitly declaring how the interface relates to the other class.
F# supports static duck typing, though with a catch: you have to use member constraints. Details are available in this blog entry.
Example from the cited blog:
let inline speak (a: ^a) =
let x = (^a : (member speak: unit -> string) (a))
printfn "It said: %s" x
let y = (^a : (member talk: unit -> string) (a))
printfn "Then it said %s" y
type duck() =
member x.speak() = "quack"
member x.talk() = "quackity quack"
type dog() =
member x.speak() = "woof"
member x.talk() = "arrrr"
let x = new duck()
let y = new dog()
speak x
speak y
TypeScript!
Well, ok... So it's a javascript superset and maybe does not constitute a "language", but this kind of static duck-typing is vital in TypeScript.
Most of the languages in the ML family support structural types with inference and constrained type schemes, which is the geeky language-designer terminology that seems most likely what you mean by the phrase "static duck-typing" in the original question.
The more popular languages in this family that spring to mind include: Haskell, Objective Caml, F# and Scala. The one that most closely matches your example, of course, would be Objective Caml. Here's a translation of your example:
open Printf
class type iMyInterface = object
method myMethod: unit
end
class myClass = object
method myMethod = printf "Hello, world!"
end
let callMyMethod: #iMyInterface -> unit = fun m -> m#myMethod
let myClass = new myClass
callMyMethod myClass
Note: some of the names you used have to be changed to comply with OCaml's notion of identifier case semantics, but otherwise, this is a pretty straightforward translation.
Also, worth noting, neither the type annotation in the callMyMethod function nor the definition of the iMyInterface class type is strictly necessary. Objective Caml can infer everything in your example without any type declarations at all.
Crystal is a statically duck-typed language. Example:
def add(x, y)
x + y
end
add(true, false)
The call to add causes this compilation error:
Error in foo.cr:6: instantiating 'add(Bool, Bool)'
add(true, false)
^~~
in foo.cr:2: undefined method '+' for Bool
x + y
^
A pre-release design for Visual Basic 9 had support for static duck typing using dynamic interfaces but they cut the feature* in order to ship on time.
Boo definitely is a static duck-typed language: http://boo.codehaus.org/Duck+Typing
An excerpt:
Boo is a statically typed language,
like Java or C#. This means your boo
applications will run about as fast as
those coded in other statically typed
languages for .NET or Mono. But using
a statically typed language sometimes
constrains you to an inflexible and
verbose coding style, with the
sometimes necessary type declarations
(like "x as int", but this is not
often necessary due to boo's Type
Inference) and sometimes necessary
type casts (see Casting Types). Boo's
support for Type Inference and
eventually generics help here, but...
Sometimes it is appropriate to give up
the safety net provided by static
typing. Maybe you just want to explore
an API without worrying too much about
method signatures or maybe you're
creating code that talks to external
components such as COM objects. Either
way the choice should be yours not
mine.
Along with the normal types like
object, int, string...boo has a
special type called "duck". The term
is inspired by the ruby programming
language's duck typing feature ("If it
walks like a duck and quacks like a
duck, it must be a duck").
New versions of C++ move in the direction of static duck typing. You can some day (today?) write something like this:
auto plus(auto x, auto y){
return x+y;
}
and it would fail to compile if there's no matching function call for x+y.
As for your criticism:
A new "CallMyMethod" is created for each different type you pass to it, so it's not really type inference.
But it IS type inference (you can say foo(bar) where foo is a templated function), and has the same effect, except it's more time-efficient and takes more space in the compiled code.
Otherwise, you would have to look up the method during runtime. You'd have to find a name, then check that the name has a method with the right parameters.
Or you would have to store all that information about matching interfaces, and look into every class that matches an interface, then automatically add that interface.
In either case, that allows you to implicitly and accidentally break the class hierarchy, which is bad for a new feature because it goes against the habits of what programmers of C#/Java are used to. With C++ templates, you already know you're in a minefield (and they're also adding features ("concepts") to allow restrictions on template parameters).
Structural types in Scala does something like this.
See Statically Checked “Duck Typing” in Scala
D (http://dlang.org) is a statically compiled language and provides duck-typing via wrap() and unwrap() (http://dlang.org/phobos-prerelease/std_typecons.html#.unwrap).
Sounds like Mixins or Traits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixin
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Scha03aTraits.pdf
In the latest version of my programming language Heron it supports something similar through a structural-subtyping coercion operator called as. So instead of:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj);
You would write:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj as IMyInterface);
Just like in your example, in this case MyClass does not have to explicitly implement IMyInterface, but if it did the cast could happen implicitly and the as operator could be omitted.
I wrote a bit more about the technique which I call explicit structural sub-typing in this article.