From: Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@...>
Date: 2010-11-12T21:28:13+09:00
Subject: Re: what's an object?

--0016364273ad3c0ac60494da39d0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The pointer value is copied into the number variable (pass by value).
> >> You can be certain the caller sees the exact same pointer when
> >> the function call returns.
> >>
> >>
> > Please re-read your blog with this in mind, since what you right here in
> > this quote are calling "pass by value" you, in your blog, call
> > "pass-by-reference".
> >
> > http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6480/refl.jpg
>
> No, no. If Ruby did what the diagram shows the program
>
>    def m(b)
>      b = Object.new
>      p b.object_id
>    end
>
>    a = Object.new
>    m(a)
>    p a.object_id
>
> would print the same number because a and b would be pointing to the
> same storage area. They aren't.
>
>
How can b change what a points to when, according to your own diagram, b
does not have any reference to a?

Here is the diagram which shows pass-by-reference and
pass-by-object-reference http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3699/ref1.jpg

And I think your confusion itself is adequate justification for Ruby's style
to deserve its own name "pass by object reference"

Also, I would appreciate if more prominent Rubyists would weigh in on this.
So far, I am disagreeing with everyone in this thread. I would like to know
what the people that I have learned to respect think. I just disagree,
because those on the other side seem so conspicuously wrong. But the number
of people on that side seems disconcerting. I would like an objective
measure in the form of people whose conclusions I can't roll my eyes at.

--0016364273ad3c0ac60494da39d0--