Indeed. Same for listeners etc. Anonymous class has indeed a very clear meaning to me and to any student that has been exposed to Java (which means "a huge lot").
Phil On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]>wrote: > 2013/11/23 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]>: > > On 23 November 2013 21:26, Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]> > >> >> 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 > >onyl> > 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? > > I can see your point. But then just say that "Anonymous classes are > private". > Just don't change the name. Anonymous classes are a well know concept > used through piles of literature. > E.g. In Java the compiler creates anonymous classes everytime you > directly instantiate an Interface. > > ej myObject.schedule(new Runnable {...}); > > Regards, > >
