On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
On 4/27/10 2:47 PM, Chris Browne wrote: > jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes: >>> * The DO() statement, allowing users to execute ad-hoc procedural statements >> DO() support, allowing for inline? execution of procedural statements. >> >> Not quite sure about this one. I don't like the word ad-hoc. Dynamic? > > Hmm. How about... > > DO() enables users to execute procedural statements without requiring > assigning function names. > > That's clearer, though a bit wordier.
I'd really prefer something that fits into a bullet without wrapping.
+1 for anonymous blocks. It's a common term in the industry, and may raise more eyebrows than 'ad-hoc' or 'dynamic'
