[Checkers] Type Declaration Qualifiers

Michael Ernst 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 mailing list