Why Isn't This Object Being Passed by Reference When Assigning Something Else to It

Why isn't this object being passed by reference when assigning something else to it?

If you are familiar with pointers, that's an analogy you can take. You're actually passing a pointer, so obj.someProperty would dereference to that property and actually override that, while merely overriding obj would kill off the pointer and not overwrite the object.

Why a String object has to be passed by reference?

So, if I modify the value of a String inside a method, it should be modified when the method call is terminated (since String is an object in C#). But this isn't true, in fact if I write:

You're not modifying the String object. You're modifying the parameter to refer to a different String. That's just changing a local variable, and is not seen by the caller.

The String reference is being passed by value, just like normal. You need to distinguish between changing the value of the parameter, and modifying the object that a parameter value refers to. You'll see exactly the same behaviour with your own class, even if it's mutable:

class Person
{
    public string Name { get; set; }
}

class Test
{
    static void Main()
    {
        var p = new Person { Name = "Tom" };
        Method(p);
        Console.WriteLine(p.Name);
    }

    static void Method(Person parameter)
    {
        parameter = new Person { Name = "Robin" };
    }
}

Now if in Method you made a change to the object instead, e.g.

static void Method(Person parameter)
{
    parameter.Name = "Robin";
}

... then you'd see a change to the output. But that's not modifying the parameter. The only reason that string's immutability is relevant is that it means the second version of Method above has no equivalent (in safe code) when the parameter is a string.

See my article on parameter passing for more details.

How can this be called Pass By Reference?

It is neither. It is call by sharing. I've also heard the term "pass by reference value" used.

Also known as "call by object" or "call by object-sharing," call by sharing is an evaluation strategy first named by Barbara Liskov et al. for the language CLU in 1974. It is used by languages such as Python, Iota, Java (for object references), Ruby, JavaScript, Scheme, OCaml, AppleScript, and many others. However, the term "call by sharing" is not in common use; the terminology is inconsistent across different sources. For example, in the Java community, they say that Java is call-by-value, whereas in the Ruby community, they say that Ruby is call-by-reference, even though the two languages exhibit the same semantics. Call by sharing implies that values in the language are based on objects rather than primitive types, i.e. that all values are "boxed".

The semantics of call by sharing differ from call by reference in that assignments to function arguments within the function aren't visible to the caller (unlike by reference semantics), so e.g. if a variable was passed, it is not possible to simulate an assignment on that variable in the caller's scope. However, since the function has access to the same object as the caller (no copy is made), mutations to those objects, if the objects are mutable, within the function are visible to the caller, which may appear to differ from call by value semantics. Mutations of a mutable object within the function are visible to the caller because the object is not copied or cloned — it is shared.

Passing by reference; why is the original object not changed?

The problem lies here:

$x = $foo;   
$x = (object)array(5);

On the first rule $x is referenced to $foo; editing $x wil also edit $foo;

(this is called "assign by reference", not "pass by reference" *1)

$x->myProperty= "Hi";

Will cause $foo to also have a property "myProperty".

But on the next line you reference $x to a new object.

Effectively unreferencing $x from $foo, all changes you make to $x won't propogate to $foo.

*1: When you call a function, the objects you pass to the functions are (in php5) "passed by reference"

Does JavaScript pass by reference?

Primitives are passed by value, and Objects are passed by "copy of a reference".

Specifically, when you pass an object (or array) you are (invisibly) passing a reference to that object, and it is possible to modify the contents of that object, but if you attempt to overwrite the reference it will not affect the copy of the reference held by the caller - i.e. the reference itself is passed by value:

function replace(ref) {
    ref = {};           // this code does _not_ affect the object passed
}

function update(ref) {
    ref.key = 'newvalue';  // this code _does_ affect the _contents_ of the object
}

var a = { key: 'value' };
replace(a);  // a still has its original value - it's unmodfied
update(a);   // the _contents_ of 'a' are changed

How do I pass a variable by reference?

Arguments are passed by assignment. The rationale behind this is twofold:

1. the parameter passed in is actually a reference to an object (but the reference is passed by value)
2. some data types are mutable, but others aren't

So:

• If you pass a mutable object into a method, the method gets a reference to that same object and you can mutate it to your heart's delight, but if you rebind the reference in the method, the outer scope will know nothing about it, and after you're done, the outer reference will still point at the original object.

• If you pass an immutable object to a method, you still can't rebind the outer reference, and you can't even mutate the object.

To make it even more clear, let's have some examples.

List - a mutable type

Let's try to modify the list that was passed to a method:

def try_to_change_list_contents(the_list):
    print('got', the_list)
    the_list.append('four')
    print('changed to', the_list)

outer_list = ['one', 'two', 'three']

print('before, outer_list =', outer_list)
try_to_change_list_contents(outer_list)
print('after, outer_list =', outer_list)

Output:

before, outer_list = ['one', 'two', 'three']
got ['one', 'two', 'three']
changed to ['one', 'two', 'three', 'four']
after, outer_list = ['one', 'two', 'three', 'four']

Since the parameter passed in is a reference to outer_list, not a copy of it, we can use the mutating list methods to change it and have the changes reflected in the outer scope.

Now let's see what happens when we try to change the reference that was passed in as a parameter:

def try_to_change_list_reference(the_list):
    print('got', the_list)
    the_list = ['and', 'we', 'can', 'not', 'lie']
    print('set to', the_list)

outer_list = ['we', 'like', 'proper', 'English']

print('before, outer_list =', outer_list)
try_to_change_list_reference(outer_list)
print('after, outer_list =', outer_list)

Output:

before, outer_list = ['we', 'like', 'proper', 'English']
got ['we', 'like', 'proper', 'English']
set to ['and', 'we', 'can', 'not', 'lie']
after, outer_list = ['we', 'like', 'proper', 'English']

Since the the_list parameter was passed by value, assigning a new list to it had no effect that the code outside the method could see. The the_list was a copy of the outer_list reference, and we had the_list point to a new list, but there was no way to change where outer_list pointed.

String - an immutable type

It's immutable, so there's nothing we can do to change the contents of the string

Now, let's try to change the reference

def try_to_change_string_reference(the_string):
    print('got', the_string)
    the_string = 'In a kingdom by the sea'
    print('set to', the_string)

outer_string = 'It was many and many a year ago'

print('before, outer_string =', outer_string)
try_to_change_string_reference(outer_string)
print('after, outer_string =', outer_string)

Output:

before, outer_string = It was many and many a year ago
got It was many and many a year ago
set to In a kingdom by the sea
after, outer_string = It was many and many a year ago

Again, since the the_string parameter was passed by value, assigning a new string to it had no effect that the code outside the method could see. The the_string was a copy of the outer_string reference, and we had the_string point to a new string, but there was no way to change where outer_string pointed.

I hope this clears things up a little.

EDIT: It's been noted that this doesn't answer the question that @David originally asked, "Is there something I can do to pass the variable by actual reference?". Let's work on that.

How do we get around this?

As @Andrea's answer shows, you could return the new value. This doesn't change the way things are passed in, but does let you get the information you want back out:

def return_a_whole_new_string(the_string):
    new_string = something_to_do_with_the_old_string(the_string)
    return new_string

# then you could call it like
my_string = return_a_whole_new_string(my_string)

If you really wanted to avoid using a return value, you could create a class to hold your value and pass it into the function or use an existing class, like a list:

def use_a_wrapper_to_simulate_pass_by_reference(stuff_to_change):
    new_string = something_to_do_with_the_old_string(stuff_to_change[0])
    stuff_to_change[0] = new_string

# then you could call it like
wrapper = [my_string]
use_a_wrapper_to_simulate_pass_by_reference(wrapper)

do_something_with(wrapper[0])

Although this seems a little cumbersome.

---

Related Topics