A reference can only be made to an object which has an address, yes, but the mechanics of making a reference don't necessarily have anything to do with taking
Also, I've made no dig at you. If you want to consider pass-by-pointer a new, made-up term that's your issue. It has existed for ages, and I've conveniently linked to a very old, big, and prominent company that uses it "(like here)".
(The dig, if any is to be taken, was more at one of the idiots over at codeguru who self-importantly proclaimed that "pass-by-pointer" doesn't exist. I wouldn't care, except that in one of the threads here on the forum someone at one point linked to his nonsense during our arguments.)
But as the FAQ says, it isn't worth arguing the issue
. I've already hashed the reasons and mechanics in the FAQ. That the term exists really is incontrovertible. You may not like it. You may not find it in your favorite standard or in your favorite author's papers... but that doesn't prove anything about the term except your distaste for it.
Duoas also wrote, in the paragraph penultimate to the one you quoted:
|This does nothing to dispel the disagreements about what to call this method of passing arguments, but it should clear up what exactly is going on.|
If you really don't think that it explains what is meant by "pass-by-pointer", explain why and what you would do to fix it. Computergeek01
's post above is an excellent example criticism.
Otherwise, it's time to move on, okay?