On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:05:44AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:
> > I thought so, until this happened!
> > The array was full of references, so I thought el held the
> > reference from the Array.
> 
> I've always felt that thinking about Ruby variables and objects in terms
> of references was a bad idea.  I prefer to think about it in terms of
> objects and names.  You have objects, and you have names that can be
> bound to objects.  

AFAIK that's the terminology used in Smalltalk.
Is it just me, or are we collectively gravitating towards Smalltalk? ;-)

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

My apologies if I sound angry.  I feel like I'm talking to a void.
	-- Avery Pennarun