From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2007-10-06T03:02:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Reference vs. Reference

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 11:05:23PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> 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...

Your comment indicates you thought I meant:

  not the address of the variable but the object (or a copy of the
  object) itself

when I really meant:

  not the address of the variable but rather the address of the object

and had over-simplified it to something like:

  not the address of the variable but the object

which is syntactically ambiguous.

Paul