From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-10-04T17:04:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Reference vs. Reference

2007/10/2, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com>:
> On 10/2/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm catching up after being away for a few days, and this seems to
> > have been a hot topic lately.
> >
> > I've seen the term call by object reference used many times in the
> > past to distinguish what happens in languages like Ruby and Smalltalk
> > from the usual meaning of call by reference.
> >
> > The difference is that call by reference implies giving the called
> > routine read/write access to the variable which holds a reference to
> > some data.  And call by object reference gives the called method read
> > access to a reference to an object.  The called routine can NOT change
> > the reference, it can only invoke methods on the referenced object.
> >
> > Note that although Ruby does allow assignment to a parameter
> > 'variable' this is only moving a 'sticky note'  to use Austin Z's nice
> > analogy.
> >
> That's pretty much how I feel things are, if "call by object
> reference" is used in the Smalltalk community I see no obvious reason
> why not to steal it ;). Ruby and Smalltalk do share the parameter
> passing semantics after all.

Completely agree.  +1 for "call by object reference". What a wonderful
resolution: two options were debunked and a third alternative is
chosen as the winner. :-)

> A side remark to Robert's witty remark about the "truth value and
> number of supporters". This was really funny and a good defense, but
> on the serious side, I honor the opinions of most of the lists
> 'regulars', even if I do not show it well all the time - which is bad
> style from my part :(. (Comment ça va Xavier? ;)

:-)  As always, it was fun debating with you, Robert.

Kind regards

robert