From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2007-10-02T03:40:28+09:00
Subject: Re: a = Dog.new # a is not a pointer and not a reference?

Hi --

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Lloyd Linklater wrote:

> There is a lot of confusion on this one.  While I know for sure that
> there are low level compiled languages that will allow the pointers to
> be explicitly OR implicitly called (i.e. you are not *required* to use
> the dereference) I do not believe that an interpreted language would
> employ specific pointers.
>
> That having been said, what is everyone basing their positions upon?  Is
> this more of a debate about what things are or how to word them to
> others?  Where did everyone look in the docs or source code to figure
> this out?

I'm just following what I've always understood, from discussions with
Matz, the Pickaxe, etc., to be the standard terminology. From the
first edition of the Pickaxe:

"Ruby variables and constants hold references to objects. Variables
themselves do not have an intrinsic type. Instead, the type of a
variable is defined solely by the messages to which the object
referenced by the variable responds."

The explanation goes into more depth but that's the basics. I've never
felt the need or desire to reconcile this with C++ or anything else.
It's always seemed straightforward to me.


David

-- 
Upcoming training from Ruby Power and Light, LLC:
   * Intro to Ruby on Rails, Edison, NJ, October 23-26
   * Advancing with Rails, Edison, NJ, November 6-9
Both taught by David A. Black.
See http://www.rubypal.com for more info!