|
|
Posted by Michael Fesser on 12/31/07 03:28
..oO(Steve)
>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:mJidnRYAhdsKJO7anZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Wrong again, Stevie. A C++ pointer is not the same as a C++ reference.
>> And C doesn't have references, just as PHP doesn't have pointers.
>>
>>> in php, a reference (or byref) behaves *IDENTICALLY* to a c/c++ pointer.
>>> there are somethings that you cannot do with this reference in php that
>>> you could in other languages, however, the nature of the beast is the
>>> same. i know that a reference in php is really just an alias of the
>>> symbol table entry, but really that just seems a matter of symantics to
>>> me. i don't care where things are stored at such a low level when i'm
>>> writing in a scripting language. i care about behaviors.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong again. They behave much differently.
>
>read, jerry, read. show me how in *PHP* the behavior is different.
All these things can't be done with references as they exist in PHP:
* pointer arithmetics
* pointer pointers
* working with the pointer itself or the value it points to (which is
the basis for the first two things)
* ...
There are _no_ pointers in PHP. A reference is _not_ a pointer.
And since PHP references behave identically to C++ references (both are
symbol table alias names), your statement above would also mean that C++
references behave identically to pointers as well. Would you tell that
to a C++ programmer?
Micha
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|