Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Even when function arguments are passed using "call by value" semantics (which is always the case in Java, and is the case by default in C#), a value of a reference type is intrinsically a reference; so if a parameter belongs to a reference type, the resulting behavior bears some resemblance to "call by reference" semantics.
In computer science, having value semantics (also value-type semantics or copy-by-value semantics) means for an object that only its value counts, not its identity. [1] [2] Immutable objects have value semantics trivially, [3] and in the presence of mutation, an object with value semantics can only be uniquely-referenced at any point in a program.
In that case a new object B is created, and the fields values of A are copied over to B. [3] [4] [5] This is also known as a field-by-field copy, [6] [7] [8] field-for-field copy, or field copy. [9] If the field value is a reference to an object (e.g., a memory address) it copies the reference, hence referring to the same object as A does, and ...
Call by reference (or pass by reference) is an evaluation strategy where a parameter is bound to an implicit reference to the variable used as argument, rather than a copy of its value. This typically means that the function can modify (i.e., assign to ) the variable used as argument—something that will be seen by its caller.
Haskell has little or no notion of reference type, but still uses the term "boxed" for the runtime system's uniform pointer-to-tagged union representation. [1] The boxed object is always a copy of the value object, and is usually immutable. Unboxing the object also returns a copy of the stored value.
Since Tcl's values are immutable, reference cycles are impossible to form and no cycle detection scheme is needed. Operations that would replace a value with a modified copy are generally optimized to instead modify the original when its reference count indicates that it is not shared.
AOL Mail welcomes Verizon customers to our safe and delightful email experience!
Where the value of the field is an immutable object this is okay; just let the 'constructor' copy the reference and both the original and its clone will share the same object. But where the value is a mutable object it must be deep copied. One solution is to remove the final modifier from the field, giving up the benefits the modifier conferred.