←back to thread

183 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.459s | source
Show context
userbinator ◴[] No.44506358[source]
Somewhat less frequently, I also hear "invoke" or "execute", which is more verbose but also more generic.

Incidentally, I find strange misuses of "call" ("calling a command", "calling a button") one of the more grating phrases used by ESL CS students.

replies(7): >>44506396 #>>44506421 #>>44506500 #>>44506580 #>>44510160 #>>44510878 #>>44511635 #
pansa2 ◴[] No.44506396[source]
> strange misuses of "call"

My favourite (least favourite?) is using “call” with “return”. On more than one occasion I’ve heard:

“When we call the return keyword, the function ends.”

replies(4): >>44506779 #>>44506910 #>>44506977 #>>44511912 #
jamesfinlayson ◴[] No.44506779[source]
I remember someone in university talking about the if function (which ostensibly takes one boolean argument).
replies(5): >>44506886 #>>44506915 #>>44507329 #>>44508128 #>>44509940 #
weinzierl ◴[] No.44506915[source]
Sounds like something Prof. John Ousterhout would say:-; The place where this was literally accurate would be Tcl.

I don't know enough Smalltalk to be sure but I think to remember it has a similar approach of everything is an object and I wouldn't be surprised if they'd coerced control flow somehow into this framework.

Also Forth comes to mind, but that would probably be a stretch.

replies(2): >>44509778 #>>44511669 #
1. kevindamm ◴[] No.44509778[source]
I would include the cond function from lisp, or the generalization from lambda calculus

   λexpr1.λexpr2.λc.((c expr1) expr2)