From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-10-05T23:05:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Reference vs. Reference

2007/10/5, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com>:
> 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)...

I'm sorry, but now I'm confused. Either I originally understood what
you meant or I'm missing something in the new version.  Maybe it's
time to leave the office and have a nap...

Kind regards

robert