At 7:27 PM +0100 1/3/03, Erik Bågfors wrote:
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 00:28, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> language-level "we're object-oriented dammit!" objects, not the
> lower-level stuff we're currently working with) should/will behave.
yay ! ... finally !
The moment we've all been waiting for :)
Sheesh, everyone lay on the guilt, why don't you? :-P
> > reference-style objects and non-reference values.
How large can a non-reference value be ? ... (in the .NET opcodes the
'struct' seems to be unlimited in size ...) But well, I'd settle for
a non-reference of at least large integers (64bit)...
And how will non-reference values dispatch methods ? ... would they be
"boxed" into a reference for each method call, so that the method call
can modify them ? ...or are all non-reference values immutable ?....
to put it down clearly ...
MyValueType a;
a.Modify();
would a be able to modify itself ? (unfortunately C# allows that)
So does ruby. We need that :)
I wasn't aware that ruby had value types--I thought it was all
reference types. Time to crack open the nutshell book again,
apparently.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
