Hacker News Reader

Comment by OldfieldFund | Hacker News Reader

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.

A keyword exclusively used for network calls, in particular microservices ahaahaha

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.

There are two terms.

* call - to send and await a reply * cast - to send and not await a 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

This tripped me up last week when I was reading Futamura’s paper on partial evaluation (i .e., Futamura projections). I’m not used to the “apply” terminology for functions, even though I learned the lambda calculus in grad school over a decade ago.

to my mind the function has always been the definition of the process and the data what that process, well, applies to. so you apply the function to the data and get an output.

Is the data changing or the function changing?

In a functional language, neither

(though new data is created as a result of running the function, technically this is guaranteed to not affect the inputs due to the function having to be pure)

(perhaps this is excessively pedantic)

When running the routine, is it typically the function that changes or the input data that changes?

If it's the same function running on different data, then you are applying the function to the data. If it's the same data running in a different function, then you are applying the data to the function.

let's just map pedantic->precise and call it a day :)

Same here, but I will say "a function call", not "a function invocation".

Invoking X sounds deliciously alchymistic, by the way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com