Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Date	Mon, 02 Sep 2024 15:18:05 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Lines	30
Message-ID	<87cyll3dk2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink)
References	<v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <87ed82p28y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6m03l$1tf05$1@dont-email.me> <87r0c1nzjj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6m716$1urj4$1@dont-email.me> <87ikxconq4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6n8iu$24af0$1@dont-email.me> <20240711115418.00001cdf@yahoo.com> <v6oamt$2d8nn$1@dont-email.me> <v6oct4$2djgq$2@dont-email.me> <v6of96$2ekb0$1@dont-email.me> <v6ovfc$2hcpf$1@dont-email.me> <v6p4hf$2icph$1@dont-email.me> <v6qgpu$2t6p7$3@dont-email.me> <v6r33m$30grj$1@dont-email.me> <v6r3iv$30gru$1@dont-email.me> <20240712045301.394@kylheku.com> <87sewesg89.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <865xresvxz.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87h6ay3jaz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87mskqtip3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain
Injection-Date	Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:18:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info	dont-email.me; posting-host="50c6ce2cfb1ba441daef0e852a430a3c"; logging-data="3170716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jEOw5Ky0/n2gJ5ieASqdS"
User-Agent	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:XSFQhQymTzV4KBvUUUR5hv3gkMY= sha1:e1vBjvuv6uaLvrR0R74naFpzu3A=
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.c:388095

Show key headers only | View raw

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>> I'm mildly disappointed.  Since arguments are *passed* and
>> functions/procedures are *called*, surely it would have made more sense
>> to use "pass by value" rather than "call by value", especially in a
>> language where the mechanism can vary per parameter.
>
> All that is, I think, due to subsequent changes in (English) language
> use.  In Algol 60, procedures were invoked and /parameters/ were called
> by value or name.  Maybe the term was intended to reflect the idea that
> the code in the body "called for the value" of the parameter.
>
> The word "call" now refers, almost universally, to invoking a function
> or procedure.  As a result, the idea of "calling a parameter" reads
> oddly, but at the time I'm sure it seemed perfectly reasonable.

I just searched the Algol 60 report for all occurrences of the word
"call".  It does refer to both procedures and parameters being "called",
but parameters are only "called by value" or "called by name", never
just "called".

It's difficult to tell what the idiomatic usage would have been at the
time.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-01 18:09 -0700
  Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-01 19:01 -0700
    Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-02 12:10 +0100
      Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-02 15:18 -0700
        Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-08 06:04 +0200
      Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-15 23:56 -0700
        Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-16 03:37 -0700
          Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-16 18:15 +0200
            Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 06:15 -0700
              Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-17 19:07 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-17 12:52 -0700
          Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-26 09:37 -0700
            Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 21:28 -0700
              Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:21 +0200
                Re: Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:09 -0700
              Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 14:03 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-28 00:26 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-28 06:43 +0200
        Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-16 22:41 +0100

csiph-web