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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)