>No, you do gain information from it: that the function takes an Iterable[Ducklike].
I already had that information. I understand my own coding style.
>Being able to reason about a function without reading its implementation is a straightforward win.
My function bodies are generally only a few lines, but my reasoning here is based on the choice of identifier name.
Yes, it takes discipline, but it's the same kind of discipline as adding type annotations. And I find it much less obnoxious to input and read.
