4 ms·
this is also a case of the later nomenclature redefining the previous nomenclature in a backwards incompatible way - Wasn't there, but pretty sure in 70s, the
by cat199 5y ago
this is also a case of the later nomenclature redefining the previous nomenclature in a backwards incompatible way -
Wasn't there, but pretty sure in 70s, the notion of pointer and reference (and 'handle', etc) were pretty much interchangeable, since AFAIK there wasn't any compiler capable of creating a compiler-checked 'reference' construct.
so, if this is true, in the relm of asm, since really we are just dealing with bits in a register that could be interpreted as data or addresses, it makes sense to treat pointer and reference interchangably, since there is no such thing as a higher-order 'reference' anyway.
- Joker_vD 5y agoNo, they used to use both "pointer" and "reference" interchangeably to mean an opaque handle that you could only pass around or dereference; for things that supported address arithmetic they used, well, "address". See for example [0] — the paper itself is from 1992, but it extensively quotes the papers from the seventies. [0] Amir M. Ben-Amram and Zvi Galil. 1992. On pointers versus addresses. J. ACM 39, 3 (July 1992), 617–648. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/146637.146666 https://doi.org/10.1145/146637.146666