From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2007-10-05T22:38:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Reference vs. Reference

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 04:50:04AM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> >Under strict interpretation of this definition I think Ruby is not
> >call-by-reference, since the address of a variable is never passed, but
> >rather the object to which the variable refers.
> 
> Not the object is passed but the address / handle or however you want to 
> name it.  If it were the object we'd have call by value IMHO (objects 
> are values in Ruby).

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I meant:

> >Under strict interpretation of this definition I think Ruby is not
> >call-by-reference, since the address of a (variable is never passed, but
> >rather the object)...

Sigh.  I wish English had explicitly specified order of evaluation like
Ruby does. :)

Paul