class - Are there any static duck-typed languages?

Question

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.

Answer 1

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.