On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Carl M. Johnson
<
cmjohnson.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.