In the previous episode we discussed how VBScript supports two kinds of reference semantics — reference types, and pass-by-reference. Clearly in order for VBScript to support pass-by-reference on variables, there has to be a variable to reference.
Consider our earlier example:
Sub Change(ByRef XYZ) XYZ = 5 End Sub Dim ABC ABC = 123 Change ABC
If that had been
Change (ABC) then based on what you know from two posts ago, you’d know that it passes
ABC by value, not by reference. So the assignment to
XYZ would not change
ABC in that scenario.
The rule is pretty simple: if you want to pass a variable by reference, you’ve got
to pass the variable, period.
This series of posts was inspired by an intrepid scripter who was trying to combine our
previous two examples. They had a program that looked something like this:
Class Foo Public Bar End Class Sub Change(ByRef XYZ) XYZ = 5 End Sub Dim Blah Set Blah = New Foo Blah.Bar = 123 Change Blah.Bar
This in fact does not change the value. This passes the value of
Blah.Bar, not a reference to
The scripter asked me “why does this not work the way I expect?” Here’s my Socratic dialog reply:
Q: Why does this not work the way I expect?
A: Because your expectations are inconsistent with the real universe. Adjust your
expectations and they’ll start being met!
Q: That is remarkably unhelpful. Let me rephrase: What underlying design principle did the VBScript designers use to justify this decision to pass by value, not reference?
A: The fundamental principle that governs this case was “do not be unnecessarily different from VB6.” VB6 does the same thing. Try it if you don’t believe me!
Q: You are begging the question. Why does VB6 do that?
A: Probably for backwards compatibility with VB5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, which incidentally was
called “Object Basic”. Ah, the halcyon days of my youth.
Q: More question begging! What was the initial justification on the day that by-reference calling was added to VB?
A: That is lost in the mists of time. That was like ten years ago! There are not very many of the original design team left. I was an intern at the time and they weren’t exactly consulting me on these sorts of decisions on a regular basis. It wasn’t so much “Eric, what do you think about these by reference semantics?” as “Eric, the OLE Automation build machine needs more memory, here’s a screwdriver.”
However, you’re in luck. I seem to recall back in the dim mists of time someone telling me something about wanting to avoid copy-in-copy-out semantics on COM objects. Suppose for example you said:
Set Frob = CreateObject("BitBucket.Frobnicator") SetToFive Frob.Rezrov
Now what happens? This isn’t a VB class, this is some third party COM object. COM objects do not have property slots, they have getter/setter accessor functions. There is no way to pass the value of
Frob.Rezrov by reference because VB does not have psychic powers which tell it where in memory the implementers of
BitBucket.Frobnicator happened to store the value of the
Given that, how could you implement byref semantics? You could implement copy-in-copy-out semantics! VB would have to create a memory location, fill it with the value returned by
get_Rezrov, pass the address of that location to
SetToFive, and then upon
SetToFive‘s return, it would have to call
Frob::set_Rezrov with the new value put into the buffer.
Easy, right? Well, it gets weird once you start thinking about non-trivial functions.
Consider the case where
SetToFive does not change the value of the by-ref variable. That call to
set_Rezrov may have side effects, so do we really want to call it if nothing changed? It seems like that could potentially cause badness, and certainly cause poor performance. In a “realio-trulio byref” system we’d expect zero sets if there was no change but in copy-in-copy-out we end up with one call to the setter regardless. How could we avoid that unwanted call?
Well, we could create yet another temporary storage to keep the original value around and do a comparison when
SetToFive returns. (Note that I’ve just waved my hands there; I’m assuming that the two values can sensibly be compared. Comparing two
things for equality is non-trivial, but that’s another posting.)
Anyway, what if the temporary storage variable changed during the execution of
SetToFive and then changed back? In that case we’d expect two calls to the setter, but actually end up with no calls!
Naïve copy-in-copy-out doesn’t provide particularly good fidelity with true byref
addressing. The original designers of VB decided that it was simply not worth
the trouble to do it at all. It is much easier to simply say that members
of COM objects do not get copy-in-copy-out semantics, and therefore they cannot be
passed by reference. If you’re going to make that restriction for some COM objects,
it seems perverse to say “we’ll do this for third party COM objects but not for VB
class objects.” Thus, VBScript does not support passing object properties by