On 23 November 2013 21:26, Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2013/11/23 Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> imo, a better term to use for it would be 'private class' , because > anonymous is a bit fuzzy. > > > > > > I disagree. Anonymous classes is the term that has been used for over > two decades. It means, literally, a class that has no name because it is > not in Smalltalk (or in a top-level environment if the dialect has > namespaces). This is not at all fuzzy. Private class means something > quite different, a class that is private to some environment, e.g. a class > nested within another class as occurs in SmalltalkAgents or Newspeak. > > +1 > > Anonymous = without name. > There's not much to add to it. > > That's the point. Now what is practical implications of it? Think, how far you can go with anonymous versus private class. If you deny anonymous classes from being private, then you'll immediately hit many problems with tools, which working with public classes and expecting them to have a name. And i don't have to go deep to point on problems: just imagine that you did a change to such 'anonymous' class, now since it is public, all tools is notified about this change, including change logger.. and my question, what you going to log into .changes file in such case? > Regards, > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
