Express What, not How.

[ketil+news at ii.uib.no]

james anderson <james.anderson at setf.de> writes:

> the last paragraph, which you site above, stand in strange contrast to the
> remainder of the post.

Well, the post he replied to, contained:

| No one is talking about need [to name functions], but about clarity
| of exposition. 

| 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. 

I interpreted this rather as a blanket statement, and one I happen to
disagree with.   Perhaps Raffael meant that anonymous functions *can*
make code less readable *sometimes*, which we all seem to agree on so
vehemently? 

A bit later, you say in <3F8CFA94.55458D4A at setf.de>

| i am trying only to understand the implications of an argument
| which, at least as stated, rather unequivocally deprecates bindings.

-- a point of view I don't quite see where you picked up.  It is
certainly not one I've seen advocated seriously by anybody.  And, as
you say:

> there is no need to overstate some elses position in order to, in the end,
> make the same point.

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants