Thank you Tim for putting it this way ... "the symbol *is* the referent" ...
I was hoping someone would say that, because that was *my* understanding
until I got into this mess!! And truth be told, I have always *hated*
pointers, which is one reason I *love* Smalltalk.

Basically, I'm trying to create relationships between objects using
Association. But I became alarmed today when I did the following:

assoc := Association new.

aKey := 'keystring'.
aValue := 'valuestring'.

assoc key: aKey value: aValue.

aValue := 'new value'.

assoc value  ==>  'valuestring'

This made me think that the association was storing a *copy* of aValue in
its own instance.

Exactly what is going on in this situation?

(Hmm ... I think I just realized the answer to that question ... but I'd
love a nice technical description so I can erase all memory of C++ from my
mind.)

Thanks for your help,

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From:	squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Rowledge
Sent:	Friday, March 22, 2002 9:46 PM
To:	squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject:	Re: Object pointers

"Chris Becker" <chb99 at msn.com> is claimed by the authorities to have
written:

> Is there a way to store an object's *pointer* in a variable?
There's no such concept in Smalltalk. Sort of a world where the symbol _is_
the referent. SO much nicer that way!

tim

--
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Useful random insult:- One bit short of a word.