From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,37680a99b5e22b2b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Shared Generic Instance Code
Date: 1997/04/06
Message-ID: <dewar.860341849@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 231107887
References: <5hrkhkINN9ip@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu> <E7zEos.w3@world.std.com>
 <01bc4155$221728e0$2dfb82c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <E8585p.AE7@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Duff said

<<I believe the term "thunk" then mutated, to mean a *single* procedure,
when passed (implicitly) as a parameter, by a compiler, to implicitly
implement some feature of a programming language.  That's how *I* used
the term.  I admit that it's a bastardization of the original usage, as
explained to me by Woodger.

Your usage of the term, as poking the called-address of a call
instruction (or jump instruction) is not familiar to me.  Do you have
any references that use it that way?  Let's hear some etymology for your
use of the term.>>


I don't really regard this as a mutation, to me a thunk is simply a
situation where an implicit procedure is passed. Yes Algol-60 call
by name sometimes involves two procedures for a parameter (but not
always).

I agree that the second usage is a peculiar mutation, I have never heard
it used before, whereas the first usage is widely understood.