Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: technology discussion =?utf-8?Q?=E2=86=92?= does the world need
 a "new" C ?
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:56:07 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <8634m0ccjc.fsf@linuxsc.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; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:56:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed2c1c22c2facd770a4416268b44112b";
	logging-data="2856479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kIfJcC8LyEYD44jCmsiMH0hEMj2GWRhA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4UvbVMuAIbo05BlDd86mI9HsGU8=
	sha1:Cf4nN6sDN6udFtoYpmBnG/OGo1A=
Bytes: 9650

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I was influenced by what I thought made the most sense.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, that does seem likely.
>>
>> 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.

This view simply doesn't match the language and phrasing used
during the time Algol was being developed.  Both the Algol 60
report and the preliminary IAL report (aka Algol 58) routinely
use the word call in connection with outside use of a procedure.
Algol 60 uses the word "invoke" exactly twice:  once in relation
to procedures (where "call" is also used), and once in relation
to functions.  Algol 58 uses the word call pretty much the same
way that Algol 60 does, but doesn't use the word "invoke" at all;
the verb "initiate" a procedure in Algol 58 turned into "invoke"
a procedure in Algol 60.  Clearly using "call" was already well
established in the late 1950s, and "invoke" came later.

Algol 58 (loosely) defined the semantics of procedure call by
textual expansion of the procedure body at the call site,
substituting the text of actual parameters for each occurrence of
the corresponding formal parameter in the procedure body.  The
actual rules are more complicated, due to there being different
"styles" (my word) of parameters, and because there were output
parameters as well as input parameters.  Basically though the
meaning was what would later be termed "call by name", with some
restrictions on what forms of actual parameters were allowed.

Algol 60 simplified the rules by reducing the number of cases to
just two:  either the actual parameter was textually substituted
for the formal parameter in the expansion (call by name), or the
value of the actual parameter expression was in effect assigned
to a local variable corresponding to the formal parameter (call
by value), which did not have a corresponding case in Algol 58.
The "call by" in "call by name" and "call by value" refers to how
the expansion is done in elaborating the procedure call.  The
"call by" is not what sort of thing is passed, but what action is
taken in doing the substitution/expansion.

>> (Yes, this is my opinion.)
>>
>> If there's some reason why "call by value" actually made more sense
>> than "pass by value", I'm not aware of it.
>>
>> Since the phrase "pass by value" is now in common use, I'll
>> continue to use that term in preference to "call by value"
>> (likewise "by reference").
>
> I use those terms too.  It would be confusing these days to talk
> about calling a parameter, and the phrase "call by value" suggests
> (as it never did at the time) something so do with the function
> calling mechanism in general.

Yes it did.  It is only now that we have a different idea about
how functions and procedures are called that it seems like it
doesn't.  But in Algol 60 it certainly did have something to do
with how a function reference was elaborated (aka called).

> This is compounded by the fact that modern programming languages
> has almost universally settled on calling all parameters by value
> (to the use the old phrase) so, usually, the terms can, in fact,
> be used to talk about the function calling mechanism.

The rationale here seems circular to me, and also not an accurate
picture of the programming language landscape.

Passing a pointer by value is not the same as a call be reference.

Passing a lambda by value is not the same as a call by name.

Shortly after Algol 60, FORTRAN adopted call by value/result,
also called call by copy in/copy out.  Ada has INOUT, does
it not?

Logic programming languages have call by unification.

All of these cases show why "pass by" is not a good universal
fit.

At their lowest level, computers are simply slinging bits around.
In some sense everything is done in terms of "values".  Thinking
in terms of what "value" is "passed" serves to reinforce an
imperative mind set, and there is already too much of that.  For
these reasons and more I disdain the hoi polloi phrasing of "pass
by" for distinguishing different parameter modalities.