In, inout, out, and damn lies....

[S. Chancellor]

On 2006-02-18 06:09:22 -0800, Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO at SPAMlycos.com> said:

> S. Chancellor wrote:
>> On 2006-02-17 06:29:43 -0800, Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO at SPAMlycos.com> said:
>> 
>>> S. Chancellor wrote:
>>>> On 2006-02-16 09:23:17 -0800, S. Chancellor <S._member at pathlink.com> said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's interesting to note that classes passed via 'in' parameters are still
>>>>> passed by VALUE.  Not reference.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just some food for thought.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -S.
>>>> 
>>>> Ignore my dipshit comment.  I ran my test incorrectly.
>>>> 
>>>> -S.
>>>> 
>>> No, what you said the first time is correct. What may be incorrect is 
>>> your notion of value/reference types and their argument passing.
>> 
>> The point is the class is not passed by value.  The pointer to the 
>> class is passed by value.  What good is that?
>> 
> The class *is* the "pointer to the class". See my reply do Derek for more.

No it's not.  The "class" is a bunch of allocated data on the heap.  
The pointer is just that, a pointer.  I have to agree with Derek on 
this one.

> 
>> -S.
>> 
>> P.S.  I have enough humility to admit my error, and you come back with 
>> a snide remark like that?  I don't even know you.
>> 
> Huh? My comment was not snide. I expressed my opinion in a direct and 
> uninsulting way. If you do not agree, then tell me: how could have I 
> said what I said, in a non-snide way?

You couldn't have, because your implication was snide.  You shouldn't 
have said it at all.

-S.