From: Eric Mahurin <eric.mahurin@...>
Date: 2007-10-03T23:13:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Reference vs. Reference

On 10/2/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer the term Object Reference myself, and see Object Handle as a
> particular implementation (at least as the term applies to the systems
> I just described).

I see using a memory address as a particular implementation of a
"handle".  I was thinking that the term "pointer" may be good enough,
but most think of a pointer as a memory address.

The problem with the term "reference" is that in the context of
call-by-reference, it implies something closer to an alias (arguments
of the function refer to the lvalue that the function was passed).  In
that context, if a variable is an object reference, "a = b" would be
equivalent to a.become(b), which is definitely not what ruby does.

In the context of the original discussion (call-by-*), call-by-handle
seems like a good description for ruby.  Variables simply hold object
handles.