Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Wording discussion (was Re: technology discussion) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:09:27 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 53 Message-ID: <87ed54st14.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <20240711115418.00001cdf@yahoo.com> <20240712045301.394@kylheku.com> <87sewesg89.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <865xresvxz.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87h6ay3jaz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87mskqtip3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8634m0ccjc.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87zfo7rija.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <867cay74m4.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87r095sosv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 23:09:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1366c00d6f20d908d4f0926f3b327eea"; logging-data="930905"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19456e7REPoFkCehzOrMVii" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gb8YkGZisMGQlZK0CIyBnvLEfYY= sha1:PB92aL0kv2CzdjHIYkuVPge6kVs= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:388533 Janis Papanagnou writes: > On 27.09.2024 06:28, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Tim Rentsch 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 */