From: no.email@nospam.invalid   
      
   anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:   
   > is the HOPL paper) says that they just wanted an elegant specification   
   > that (I think) supports in-out semantics.  What they wrote down was   
   > call-by-name, but they were not aware of all the consequences when   
   > they wrote it.   
      
   I don't remember Algol syntax but I had thought using call-by-name as a   
   cheap inline function was idiomatic in it.  E.g. to add up the first n   
   squares, you could say   
      
      a = sum(i, 1, n, i*i)   
      
   where sum was defined something like (pseudocode):   
      
   >>but in Algol-60 I guess it can be stack allocated, unlike Scheme   
   >>closures which have to be on the heap.   
   >   
   > Sophisticated Scheme compilers can determine when they can reside on   
   > the stack.   
      
   Sure, but Algol-60 didn't create the possibility of having to heap   
   allocate anything.  So it avoided needing GC, which would have been a   
   big minus in that era.  Lisp existed then but idk if it was actually   
   used for anything outside of research.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)