Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: technology discussion =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=86=92?= does the world need
 a "new" C ?
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:31:36 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <20240712163136.00006617@yahoo.com>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6d779$6rk5$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6e76u$c0i9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6esqm$fian$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6f7vg$hgam$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240707164747.258@kylheku.com>
	<v6gl83$s72a$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6h8ao$ur1v$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jhk3$1drd6$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jiud$1dsjb$1@dont-email.me>
	<877cdur1z9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6joi4$1epoj$1@dont-email.me>
	<871q42qy33.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6k6i0$1h4d3$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>
	<20240712154252.00005c2f@yahoo.com>
	<v6r9ra$31l3s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:31:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="70de34ff89eb4fe717f9f57a5eafcd77";
	logging-data="3179669"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6fv+za7A7DGVy3g0zGL+C/YB3mThCaGM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7C/3NZLpYmUqlSJ5P+s4wd4zemk=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3468

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:07:53 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 12.07.2024 14:42, Michael S wrote:
> > 
> > I don't share your optimistic belief that the term "pass by
> > reference" is really established. Very few terms in computer
> > science (science? really?) are established firmly. Except, may be,
> > in more theoretical branches of it.  
> 
> I don't know of any "standard" describing that - if that's what you
> are aiming at - but I also wouldn't expect an international standard
> document. And newer sources (specifically including blogs and bots!)
> certainly may muddy waters.
>

I would expect that thousands of occurrences of phrase "passed by
reference" in relationship with passing explicit pointer to object can
be found in old books, including books not authorized by Herbert
Schildt.

> All my sources since days in University had a consistent semantical
> description.
> 
> Computer Scientists seems not to have been keen to introduce here
> own and different terms.
>

They are.

> In case you have other, new [to me], or own concrete semantical
> interpretations of the "call-by-reference" mechanism I'm certainly
> interested to hear about.
> 
> Especially in the light of alternative facts and "own definitions"
> (like Bart's) I suggest otherwise to not spread FUD about that.
> The gridlocked discussion is already annoying enough. :-/
> 
> Janis
> 

Not sure what gridlocked discussion do you have in mind.