Comment by jamesemmott
6 days ago
This original sense of 'call' (deriving from the 'call number' used to organize books and other materials in physical libraries) was also responsible for the coinage of 'compiler', according to Grace Hopper: 'The reason it got called a compiler [around 1952] was that each subroutine was given a "call word", because the subroutines were in a library, and when you pull stuff out of a library you compile things. It's as simple as that.'
I invoke them :]
I fondly remember blessing objects in perl.
https://perldoc.perl.org/functions/bless
Shame we can't use `cast`, that's already being used for types. And `conjure` probably only works for object constructors.
And 'summon' is just used for demons.
1 reply →
AFAIK there isn't a wizardly joke programming language yet--perhaps that was considered redundant--but you can use "giving" and "taking" if you're a rock-star programmer. :P
https://codewithrockstar.com/
Erlang/Elixir use "cast" method name when sending messages to their GenServer actor processes.
1 reply →
let's use conjure for method interactions and reify as a special case when that method is a constructor. the more this sounds like medieval alchemy the more I can get behind it, and I've already got misbehaving daemons
I bind my functions before I apply them
Synonyms of "invoke" include "call forth" and "conjure up."
Or a "call sheet", which is the list of cast and crew needed for a particular film shoot
The functional peeps even `apply` them.
I've never been quite sure when I'm applying data to a function, or applying a function to some data
6 replies →
Same here, but I will say "a function call", not "a function invocation".
Invoking X sounds deliciously alchymistic, by the way.
I just connected the dots... The identifier digits in the Dewey Decimal classification are called "call numbers" !
Yes, that's in the second paragraph of the article.
I took this to be a pun on "decimal" and "connecting the dots" but perhaps I'm just wired to see puns where they weren't necessarily intended.
1 reply →