Anonymous Methods and Types

[Keith Barrow]

I disagree, just because it's possible that anonymous methods are messy, it doesn't follow that they are:

delegate void Foo(string s);

static void WriteToConsole(string j)
{
System.Console.WriteLine(j);
}

public static void RunSnippet()
{
Foo bar = WriteToConsole;
bar("The delegate using the named method is called.");
}

is far less terse than:

delegate void Foo(string s);

public static void RunSnippet()
{
Foo bar = j => System.Console.WriteLine(j);
bar("The delegate using the named method is called.");
}

Once you get used to reading the syntax, sometimes it is just much cleaner to do it this way. If you need to doe something more complicated, then the anonymous method will look messier but, often, the anonymous method should be an actual method on the object type that is being acted on. Ironically, this means the "closure" stuff is cleaner if you get the object encapsulation right.

Dalek Dave: There are many words that some find offensive, Homosexuality, Alcoholism, Religion, Visual Basic, Manchester United, Butter. Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.

[Nish Nishant]

Brady Kelly wrote:

In other words, a closure.

How can an anonymous type be a closure? :~

Regards, Nish

---

Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link

[Joe Woodbury]

With few exceptions, clear, simple code optimizes much better than convoluted "fancy" code. C# is no different.

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

On the other hand, if it's such a problem to you, maybe you're in the wrong business?

-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit

[Ed Poore]

Maybe they're just a bit shy?

[Ed Poore]

How about doing some proper exercise :-)[^] Seriously though, do a summer's worth (i.e. a few training expeditions and then the main thing) and you'll see how quickly you become fit lugging a 50lbs rucksack around the mountains. You're expected to (as a 16 yro kid) eat a minimum of 3,500-4,500 calories per day just to keep going (you'll probably lose a bit of wait even with eating that much, I did).

[Rajesh R Subramanian]

Thanks, I could try that some time. :)

“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell

[Rajesh R Subramanian]

Thank you. :)

“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell

[Johann Gerell]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Only one place I use var

var has very little to to with anonymous types[^]. In your example, it just declares a reference to the actual anonymous type.

Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time - Bertrand Russel

[CKnig]

Just look for FP (or functional programming) themes/books/articles/hypes/whatever ... and you will see that those are THE BEST feature we got in the last couple of years - I combination with closure caps and generics you can finally say that FP made it mainstream (and with F#, Clojure, etc. you can see that many people are very happy about this). I'm using anon. methods almost everywhere (who said "if you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail!"?) I hide variables in closures, I use those for "lazy"-support etc. pp Greetings, Carsten

[Justin Karpilo]

I use them as a shorthand return object from web service calls from script (they get serialized into JSON anyway).

[Crawfis]

Here is a Professor's take on it: - Generally we want to create re-usable types, perfect their interfaces, implementation of interfaces and ensure they are robust. Obviously anonymous types can not be used here. - However, quite often we have a need for a type that is very specific to the task at hand and will not be reused. Anonymous types can be used here and do allow better readability in that the code (delegate or type definition) is where the use of it is. Of course I tell my class that these were really required for LINQ.

Roger A. Crawfis Associate Professor Computer Science & Engineering The Ohio State University