Oct. 13, 2011
5:51 a.m.
On Oct 12, 2011, at 7:45 PM, David Townshend wrote:
A question: As I understand it, the function is never actually bound to its name, i.e. in your first example the name "report_destruction" doesn't exist after the statement. If this is the case, then there seems little point assigning a name at all other than for providing a description. In fact, assigning a name implies that it is reusable and that the name means something.
I'm not sure I like the idea of allowing defs without a name, but perhaps its something to think about.
-1 To me, the names are part of the documentation. The advantage of anonymous blocks is the block part, not the anonymous part.