It may be what reference means, but just because a language has references doesn't mean that it is passing-by-reference. There are plenty of languages that allo

It may be what reference means, but just because a language has references doesn't mean that it is passing-by-reference. There are plenty of languages that allow actual pass-by-ref, like C++. The usual litmus test is writing a function that takes two ints (not int refs!) and they're swapped at the end. In C++, you can tell because of "int&" in the signature of the function you're calling; as opposed to plain int. In languages with macros, you get to cheat a little, and write something that looks like the above without _really_ having those semantics. However, in languages like Lisps where your macro language is extremely powerful, you might not really miss it so much. There is a lot of convenience in _not_ having pass-by-ref! Sometimes I feel like the ardent opposition just doesn't want to admit their favorite language is missing a feature ;-) If I call a function f(a, b), I know that a, b are still pointing at the same object in e.g. Python. That is not the case in C++ (pass-by-ref) or Lisp (arbitrary macros). Predictable language semantics make code easier to reason about. That's a good thing, and it's quite plausible that the added complexity and confusion of supporting pass-by-ref isn't worth the expressiveness. I appreciate that the term is confusing, but it does mean something. I submit that making it mean two things would be even more confusing. If it's confusing, just say "passing (an argument) _as a reference_" which is unambiguously about what you're passing, and not how you're passing it.