A question on modification of a list via a function invocation

[Gregory Ewing]

Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>     [quoting Scott Stanchfield]
>     Figure 7: (Java) Defining a Dog pointer
>     Dog d;
> 
>     When you write that definition, you are defining a pointer to a Dog
>     object, not a Dog object itself.
>     [end quote]
> 
> Here Scott mixes up what the compiler does (creates a pointer to a Dog object,
> and what the programmer's Java code does (creates a Dog).

Um, no. The declaration 'Dog d' on its own does NOT create a Dog,
in any way, shape or form. It only declares something that can
*refer* to a Dog created elsewhere, which is what Scott is
quite correctly saying.

> I expect this is because, as a "compiler guy", Scott probably doesn't really
> believe that objects are values.

Please stop insulting Scott's intelligence, and that of other
"compiler guys", by suggesting that they don't understand things
as well as you do.

-- 
Greg