• Russ Lewis (14/14) Jan 18 2005 I just had a case where I had a function that didn't need to be named,
• parabolis (3/8) Jan 18 2005 rofl
• Andy Friesen (3/20) Jan 18 2005 Why not just give it a name?
• Russ Lewis (20/21) Jan 18 2005 This is basically your question to both of my messages here. I think it...

Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

I just had a case where I had a function that didn't need to be named, 
except that I wanted it to be recursive.  It would have been really nice 
if I could have called it from itself with a keyword like 'self':

uint function(uint) func =
   function uint(uint i) {
     if(i == 0)
       return 0;
     else
       return i+self(i-1);
   };

Of course, I could have written it as a for loop, but sometimes 
recursion is really the thing that is most readable.

I have this weird feeling that I might have mentioned this before...but 
I didn't find it with a search.

parabolis <parabolis softhome.net> writes:

Russ Lewis wrote:
 Of course, I could have written it as a for loop, but sometimes 
 recursion is really the thing that is most readable.
 
 I have this weird feeling that I might have mentioned this before...but 
 I didn't find it with a search.

rofl

Recursive people tend to have the feeling they have done something before.

Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:

Russ Lewis wrote:
 I just had a case where I had a function that didn't need to be named, 
 except that I wanted it to be recursive.  It would have been really nice 
 if I could have called it from itself with a keyword like 'self':
 
 uint function(uint) func =
   function uint(uint i) {
     if(i == 0)
       return 0;
     else
       return i+self(i-1);
   };
 
 Of course, I could have written it as a for loop, but sometimes 
 recursion is really the thing that is most readable.
 
 I have this weird feeling that I might have mentioned this before...but 
 I didn't find it with a search.

Why not just give it a name?

  -- andy

Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

Andy Friesen wrote:
 Why not just give it a name?

This is basically your question to both of my messages here.  I think it 
deserves a good answer. :)

I generally agree with the idea that declaring a function, and giving it 
a name, is good practice.  But the thing that that does is it tends to 
clutter up the "mindspace" of the reader.  The reader has to ask 
himself: is this function used in more than one place?  What sorts of 
arguments might it have?  Does the guy store function pointers to it anyhow?

Unnamed functions have the advantage of being quite obvious - they are 
only used once (unless they are stored in a function pointer, but then 
it's clear which function pointer they are).  Their purpose is (or, at 
least, can be in certain contexts) clear from the context, and you don't 
have to give it a long name to describe it.  (Yes, you can use short 
names, or even "Foo", but that doesn't help readability, IMHO.)

I know that unnamed functions also make the code harder to read, in 
certain situations.  I think it's a balance.  Either way has its 
downsides, and in this particular situation I thought that an unnamed 
function would be more readable.

That's just MHO, of course.  There's nothing that says that anybody else 
has to agree with me :)