Dimitri Aivaliotis wrote:
> On 6/22/06, Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck / gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I think it may be too indirect. You aren't really checking whether
>> the module has a name or not, but rather if it's anonymous.
> 
> 
> Isn't that the very definition of anonymous? "without a name"

Good point :)

I still think it's less mysterious to users if they could check the 
anonymity of a module/class with an #anonymous? method, rather than 
checking whether the name is nil.


Cheers,
Daniel