Rick DeNatale wrote:
> [Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Aldric Giacomoni <"aldric[removeme]"@
> trevoke.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> Dylan Evans wrote:
>>     
>>> [Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
>>>
>>> I would be inclined to use an array, part of the beauty of dynamic
>>>       
>> languages
>>     
>>> is the typeless nature of arrays which does away with a lot of management
>>> code, in c++ trees i normally write a base node class then branch and
>>>       
>> leaf
>>     
>>> nodes which is a lot of work compared to [x, [y, z]]
>>> Of course if you wanted to create branch nodes for some custom purpose
>>>       
>> then
>>     
>>> you could just assign the children to it since they are passed by
>>>       
>> reference.
>>     
>>>       
>> How would .. passing the children by reference work?
>>     
>
>
> Ruby is a uniformly object oriented language, all values are object
> references.  Variables, and parameters are simply named references to
> objects, not the objects themselves.  Individual slots in an array also hold
> reverences to objects rather than the objects themselves, they just don't
> have names.
>
> So everything is passed by object reference.  This is not the same thing as
> passing by referernce in a language like C, although the differences can be
> subtle.
>
> Here's an oldie but goody of mine which might help understand the
> relationship between variables, values, and objects.
>
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/articles/2006/09/13/on-variables-values-and-objects
>
>
>   
Great little post.. Thanks, I'd forgotten some of the basics :)