Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #388533

Re: Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion)

Show all headers | View raw

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 27.09.2024 06:28, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> [ pondering about "call by ..." vs. "pass by ..." ]
>> 
>> I won't ask you to reply to this.  I think it's unlikely that further
>> discussion is going to be productive.  *If* you can explain *in one
>> short paragraph" why you think "call by" is better than "pass by",
>> that might be useful, but I'm not optimistic.  Since you and I
>> have a tendency to talk past each other, perhaps someone else can
>> summarize the issue, but again, I'm not asking anyone to spend the
>> time to do that.
>
> (First, I agree with your interpretation of the use of "call"
> and "pass" in K&R's book; to me that explanation makes sense.)
>
> As a non-native speaker - and since I don't mind either of the
> two wordings used, or choose it depending on context[*] - I'm
> just asking that out of curiosity...
>
> It just occurred to me that there's a lexically similar "call
> for sth." (in the sense of "require", or maybe "ask for sth").
> This is less technical - which might be one problem of the
> discussion here: technical vs. semantical interpretations.
> Could that be the reason for historic use of "call-by"? (I'm
> not sure whether "call for a parameter value" makes sense in a
> debate that is technically oriented or whether "call by value"
> could be sort of an abbreviation at all, in the first place.
> As said; non-native speaker here.
> Here I'm only interested in the non-technical English language
> view to better understand where that "call-by" might come from
> [from an English language perspective].)
>
> Janis
>
> [*] E.g., I pass the parameter using a call-by-value mechanism,
> or simplified, I pass the parameter by value.

I think I covered most of this in the long followup I just posted.

In modern usage, functions are "called", and arguments are "passed".
Phrases like "call-by-value" are, I think, a relic of earlier usage,
particularly in the Algol 60 Report, in which functions/procedure
and parameters were both "called".  I don't know whether the Algol
60 Report was the origin of this usage, or whether it was already
common usage at the time.

(And I probably could have replaced my entire post with the above
paragraph.)

-- 
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 ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-29 08:07 -0700
        Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-09-16 22:41 +0100

csiph-web