Re: little precision about anonymous access types

[G. B. <nonlegitur@nmhp.invalid>]

Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> "Mehdi Saada" <00120260a@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:edf7b96a-f340-408c-994f-d5aa73b9f2db@googlegroups.com...
>> I have a little question about (anonymous) access types:
> 
> There are several different kinds of anonymous access types, all with 
> different semantics in details. The best possible advice is to not use them 
> at all, since they're more likely to be confusing than useful. If you follow 
> that advice, you don't have to worry about differing details. :-)


Seen from a business perspective, judicious use of unnamed
entities creates opportunities of specialization. If you know
names, but do not tell them, then by way of leveraging anonymous 
entities and their “correct” use, you might hope to reap the benefits
of Rumpelstilskin economics...

Anonymous types might work until some business person 
decides he has had enough of the special, costly treatment
that they require.