Express What, not How.

[Hartmann Schaffer]

In article <raffaelcavallaro-D3CEF4.18102214102003 at netnews.attbi.com>,
	Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro at junk.mail.me.not.mac.com> writes:
>> A programmer accustomed to the 
>> functional style finds the need in non-FP languages to name every 
>> function analogously awkward.
> 
> No one is talking about need, but about clarity of exposition.

which is essentially a style question, which usually don't have
absolute answers

> It is perfectly possible to program functionally in lisp, as I'm sure 
> you know. It just makes code less readable to use _anonymous_ functions. 
> Code is no less functional when the functions are named.

this would largely depend on the function.  e.g. i don't see any
benefit in adding function definitions to add 2 or multiply by 3
instead of using anonymous functions

(defun add2 (x) (+ x 2))

... many lines / pages/ screenloads of code

(map 'list #'add2 list)

doesn't look any more expositive to me than

(map 'list (lambda (x) (+ x 2)) list),

quite to the contrary.  there are enough cases where you need
something like this.  obviously, you can abuse this

> ...
> Anonymous functions force the _how_ to be interleaved with the _what_, 
> breaking up the clarity of the _what_. Named functions (and macros) 
> allow the high level abstractions to be expressed in terms of _what_ is 
> happening, without unnecessary reference to _how_.
> 
> Anonymous functions force the reader to deal with _how_ precisely 
> because there is no descriptive name that expresses _what_ the funtion 
> does. This is an inappropriate conflation of two distinct purposes, that 
> can and should be separated in source code.

the problem with your position is that you make a dogma out of a
generally useful observation

hs

-- 

ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam