It looks to me like what happens is exactly what you'd expect, i.e., you end up with a function defined under the name "func", just as you would with any other function name. Is there something I'm missing?
The example above is doing both at the same time... don't know if it's a mistake on their part or not.
However they're probably wondering if the user knows about scope and other such things. Inside the brackets we have a new scope but it has access to top level scope as well. They want to know that you know that stuff.
Try any of the two lines above in a js console (in browser) then type:
There are three ways to define a function in Javascript; the third is exemplified in the example above, although it's not usually done with the same name for the variable and for the function.
The value of naming a function as you assign it to a variable is that, when an exception arises within the function body, your error log output contains the function name, which doesn't always happen when you simply do "var foo = function () {...}". (It's also handy when you're using an editor which doesn't understand Javascript well enough to understand that "var foo = function () {...}" actually creates a function named "foo"; in such cases, explicitly naming the function clues in the editor's parser, which simplifies code navigation.)
