From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2007-10-03T23:54:12+09:00
Subject: Re: Reference vs. Reference

On 10/3/07, Eric Mahurin <eric.mahurin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Call by object reference has been used for many years.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22call+by+object+reference

Call by object handle has not:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22call+by+object+handle

-- 
Rick DeNatale
Fine Object Oriented Programming since the 1980s

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/