Official definition of call-by-value (Re: Finding the instance reference...)

[Antoon Pardon]

On 2008-11-19, greg <greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Call by value is officially defined in terms of assignment in
>> a context where assignments means copying and in a definition
>> of a specifix language.
>> 
>> You can't lift this part out of the definition of algol 60
>> and say it applies equally well in languages with different
>> assignment semantics.
>
> But many other language designers, of both static and
> dynamic languages, have done just that.
> I'm not saying it *has* to be interpreted that way,
> just that it *is* very often interpreted that way.
> So you can't claim that it's not common usage.

You are changing your argument. In a follow up you
made the point that call by value should be as it
was intended by the writers of the algol 60 report.

Now your falling back to how it is often interpreted.
It is very well possible that it is often interpreted
contrary to how it was intended. And since this
interpretation just as often results in misunderstandings
I don't think it is a usefull interpretation.

-- 
Antoon Pardon