"Mike Parker" <aldacron71@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:faiicj$2hms$1@digitalmars.com...
> Yeah, I get it, but it still /feels/ inconsistent to me. If the size of a class reference is 4 bytes, then it seems to me that the size of a ref parameter should be the same and not the size of the object to which it refers. But I suppose we aren't supposed to think of a ref parameter as a true reference, but rather as a mutable view of the original data.

Right, which is more of how I've understood Walter's intentions for 'ref': the semantics imply a mutable view of a piece of data, but the actual implementation should not be revealed.  The compiler could, for example, pass the parameter by value into the function, and then when the function returns, copy that parameter back into where it came from, in which case no actual pointers are being used.  Of course this is a roundabout and ineffecient way of implementing 'ref', but according to the semantics, a valid one.