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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à l c 
Sujet : Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
De : tr.17687 (at) *nospam* z991.linuxsc.com (Tim Rentsch)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 02. Sep 2024, 03:09:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <865xresvxz.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>
On 2024-07-12, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
It's clearly not by value.  It's apparently not by reference.  You
can't get away with saying they are not passed, as clearly
functions *can* access array data via parameters.
>
Actually, you probably can get away with saying that it is "passed
by reference".
>
The formal term that doesn't apply is "call by reference";  that's
what C doesn't have.
>
"call by reference" emphasizes that the function call mechanism
provides the reference semantics for a formal parameter, not that
some arbitrary means of passage of the data has reference
semantics.
>
[...]
>
I know that "call by reference" is the usual formal term, but I
personally prefer "pass by reference".
>
The terms "call by reference" and "call by value" emphasize the
call, implying that all arguments in a given call are passed with
the same mechanism.  In some languages that's true (C argument
passing is purely by value, and Fortran, as I understand it, is
purely by reference), but in others (C++, Pascal, Ada) you can
select by-value or by-reference for each parameter.  "Pass by
(reference|value)" feels more precise.
>
I haven't checked, but I suspect the terms "call by (reference|value)"
predate languages that allowed the mechanism to be specified for each
parameter.

I suspect that your guess here is influenced more by what you would
like to be true than what is likely to be true.

What is likely to be true is that these terms entered the language
at essentially the same time as the original Algol.  Algol 60 has
both call by name and call by value, referred to by those names in
the Algol 60 Report, and selectable on a per-parameter basis.

By contrast the precursor to Algol 60, the International Algebraic
Language or IAL for short (and referred to after the fact as Algol
58) did not use either term, and described the coupling between
arguments and parameters only in somewhat vague English prose that
left unclear exactly what the binding mechanism(s) were to be.
(There was a description for functions and a separate description
for procedures, not quite the same, and both not completely clear
exactly what the mechanism was meant to be.)

Thus it seems likely that the terms call by name, call by value,
and perhaps other similar terms, first arose during the discussions
of the Algol 60 working group in the late 1950s, and entered the
general lexicon with or perhaps slightly before the publication of
the Algol 60 Report, which describes and allows both call by name
and call by value, selectable on a per-parameter base, and referred
to by those names in the published Algol 60 Report.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jul 24 * technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?301aotto1968
5 Jul 24 +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?298Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?297BGB
5 Jul 24 i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1yeti
5 Jul 24 i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?267Keith Thompson
5 Jul 24 i i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?264BGB
5 Jul 24 i ii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?18Ben Bacarisse
5 Jul 24 i iii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?17BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?14Ben Bacarisse
6 Jul 24 i iii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?9BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii ii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2David Brown
6 Jul 24 i iii iii`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
7 Jul 24 i iii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6Ben Bacarisse
7 Jul 24 i iii ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Keith Thompson
7 Jul 24 i iii ii i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
7 Jul 24 i iii ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
7 Jul 24 i iii ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2bart
7 Jul 24 i iii ii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4Malcolm McLean
6 Jul 24 i iii i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2bart
7 Jul 24 i iii i   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
6 Jul 24 i iii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Janis Papanagnou
6 Jul 24 i iii  `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
5 Jul 24 i ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?245Keith Thompson
6 Jul 24 i ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?244Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Jul 24 i ii  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?228BGB
6 Jul 24 i ii  i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
6 Jul 24 i ii  i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6James Kuyper
6 Jul 24 i ii  ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?5BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3Michael S
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  ii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
7 Jul 24 i ii  i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?220Keith Thompson
7 Jul 24 i ii  i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?215BGB
7 Jul 24 i ii  i i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?214James Kuyper
7 Jul 24 i ii  i i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?213BGB
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?212James Kuyper
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i   `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?211Kaz Kylheku
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Ben Bacarisse
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?207James Kuyper
8 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?206BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?205David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?197bart
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?194Ben Bacarisse
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?193bart
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?184Ben Bacarisse
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii ii `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?180bart
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?178Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?177bart
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i   `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?176Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Thiago Adams
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?167bart
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Janis Papanagnou
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?54Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?14Michael S
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?8David Brown
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?7Michael S
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6Kaz Kylheku
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?5Michael S
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Kaz Kylheku
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iiii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Ben Bacarisse
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Kaz Kylheku
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3BGB
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    iii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?39bart
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?37Michael S
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?34bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Michael S
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?32Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?31bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Tim Rentsch
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii  i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?28Keith Thompson
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii   `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?27bart
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?25Keith Thompson
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?15bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?14David Brown
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?12bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Janis Papanagnou
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?7David Brown
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2bart
13 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
13 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3David Brown
17 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Bart
17 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii ii   `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?3Keith Thompson
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2James Kuyper
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    ii `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1BGB
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?9bart
12 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii ii    `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Thiago Adams
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Keith Thompson
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1James Kuyper
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    ii `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i+* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2James Kuyper
11 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    i`* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?109Ben Bacarisse
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii i    `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?7Janis Papanagnou
10 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  ii `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?8Kaz Kylheku
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  i+- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1David Brown
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Keith Thompson
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  +- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Michael S
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    i  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6BGB
9 Jul 24 i ii  i i    `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Tim Rentsch
10 Jul 24 i ii  i `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?4Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Jul 24 i ii  +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?9James Kuyper
7 Jul 24 i ii  `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?6Keith Thompson
6 Jul 24 i i`- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
5 Jul 24 i +* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?26bart
5 Jul 24 i `- Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?1lexi hale
7 Jul 24 `* Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?2Bonita Montero

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal