> The "value" of an object could be thought of as a pointer to that object.
> You aren't getting the pointer's address, you're getting it's value.
> It happens to point to the object you want.
>
> It's a matter of semantics.
I've ran into this argument before. For all intents and purposes this is
still "pass by reference", in my opinion.
There is *always* going to be *something* passed by value, whether it's an
integer, a pointer to an integer, a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to
a pointer... etc. So classifying Java's argument passing as pass by value
because the reference to the object is passed by value doesn't accomplish
anything, since under that definition there exists no arguments passed
by reference (and hence using that definition would imply that the
distinction is not necessary, negating the necessity of the very same
definition).
(my argument does not apply of course if you have in the context of the
statement explicitly qualified "argument" as being the reference to an object)
--
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB
PGP userID: 0x5584BD98 or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
Key retrival: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://scode.infidyne.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
