>In that sense, they are functionally equivalent to function objects in
	>Python and anonymous inner classes in Java? Why does the OO world treat
	>these so differently in each language?

Well, in Java at least, the anonymous inner classes are described
as "an ugly hack."  It was an expedient way to get the concept into
the language without having to break too many other things.  It 
wasn't designed into the language in the first place.

Languages evolve; it's an immense chore to add neat features in
a way that is consistent with the basic metaphor of the language --
just ask Matz :-).  Fortunately, he's really good at it.  Or 
he got all the good stuff in right off the bat, which helps as well.

/\ndy