Making the move...

Mark Smith mark at
Mon Mar 20 22:01:45 EST 2006

I think the point is that when a variable is passed to a function/ 
handler 'normally', the data in it is duplicated, and if the data is  
big, this is not as efficient as passing it by reference - obviously,  
if you need to change the data in the called function/handler, this  
may have unwanted side-effects, in  which case passing it normally is  
going to be better.


On 21 Mar 2006, at 02:20, Sarah Reichelt wrote:

> On 3/21/06, Rob Cozens <rcozens at> wrote:
>> G'day Sarah,
>>> In my experience, it's probably due to never passing values by
>>> reference.
>> I'm curious as to why you eschew passing by reference.
>> If one needs to pass large variables, why incur the overhead of
>> duplicating the value of the variable before passing it?  And if a
>> variable value needed at one level is derived from a routine nested
>> several calls deep, simply passing the variable by reference through
>> the nested calls is the simplest way to get the value back to the
>> original caller.
> It's not a philosophy, more ignorance :-)
> I haven't ever really tested it and I have an instinctive feeling that
> functions should be self-sufficient and shouldn't change anything
> outside them. Maybe it will suit me better in some circumstances.
> Cheers,
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list