Ketil Malde wrote:
>
> Sometimes the best documentation is the code itself. Sometimes the
> best name for a function is the code itself.
Absolutely. When I take over someone else's code I begin by deleting all
the comments. Then I read the code. If a variable or function name makes
no sense (once I have figured out what they /really/ do) I do a global
change. Pretty soon the system is "documented". And I usually find a
couple of bugs as the renaming produces things like:
count = count + weight
I think one good argument for anonymous functions is a hefty Cells
application, with literally hundreds of rules. The context is set by the
instance and slot name, and as you say, the rule speaks for itself:
(make-instance 'frame-widget
:bounds (c? (apply 'rect-union (all-bounds (subwidgets self)))))
Why do I have to give that a name? And if the algorithm gets hairier,
well, why is the reader looking at my code? If the reader is debugging
or intending to modify the rule, they damn well better be looking at the
code, not the name and not the comments. (Never a problem with my code. <g>)
kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"Have you ever been in a relationship?"
Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
minister husband, when asked if the couple had
marital problems.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
