Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dave Benjamin, post: 1731442"] True, but there are other reasons for anonymity besides the conservation of character count (heh). Sometimes, you just don't know if something needs to be reusable. Maybe YAGNI. For me, I typically go through an exploratory phase when writing a new module where I don't name a lot of things, don't create a lot of objects, and just try to solve a problem. I find that the ability to toss around "thunks" helps me find a solution through experimentation. Once the code is solid, I lift anonymous functions and extract methods and classes where access patterns dictate the ability to reuse and eliminate redundancy. At this point, I actually see the solution, so I don't have to anticipate what sort of structure I'm going to need. This is just one manner of solving problems, of course. However, it happens to work particularly well (for me) in new domains which I lack the experience necessary to work out a good structure in advance. With every named object in a program comes the implicit assumption that the object will later need to be called for by name. This goes for functions, classes, and temporary variables. I'm not trying to jump into the fire here, but I just wanted to illustrate how anonynimity might be about imperfection, too. After all, you can always repent^H^H^H^Hfactor later. =) Peace, Dave [/QUOTE]