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 =?utf-8?Q?=E2=86=92?= 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>
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

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 */