> I'm too lazy to really bother how you use addr Just print them, nothing more. BTW, is there some less fancy way to do that?
> but your understanding is correct, things are on the stack unless it's ref. > Yes, really. In C example addresses of variables on the stack are **greater** then heap addresses and this is Ok, usually the stack resides 'below' the heap, at higher addresses, right? In NIm example I see reversed picture - variables on the stack (non `ref`) have **lower** addresses - this is the point of my confusion.
