Morton Goldberg wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 1:16 PM, SpringFlowers AutumnMoon wrote:
> 
> I think it best to think of a Ruby variable as holding a reference to
> an object. Ruby's reference semantics are different from C++'s, but
> IMO more mainstream. C++'s reference semantics are peculiar, to say
> the least, and perhaps even unique [*]. Ruby's variable semantics are
> simple and clean when compared to C++, so I recommend forgetting
> about making such comparisons.

hm... so you mean best to think of a Ruby variable as holding a pointer 
to an object?  I hope either

1) we use the word "reference" to mean a pointer
2) or, we just use the word pointer instead,

that's because "reference" seems to mean something different in both 
C++, PHP, and in the general computer science area.



-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.