[Checkers] Type Declaration Qualifiers
mernst at csail.mit.edu
Mon Aug 25 07:29:54 EDT 2008
> >> How should one express that a type cannot be Immutable?
> > Can you give a use case for when one would want to say this?
> I am thinking of procedural classes, e.g. loggers, parsers, output
> streams. In practice, all references are mutable references; and I
> cannot imagine having an immutable reference to such classes.
I see. Declaring one Immutable will quickly cause a type error at the
useful operations, so I don't think people would persist in such an error
for very long. Thus, although such a declaration might be nice to have, it
doesn't feel like to me like it is essential. But let's keep it in mind
for the future.
More information about the checkers