thoughts on immutability in D

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 04:46:07 -0400, Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario at gmx.de>  
wrote:

>
>
> On 9/24/2011 9:30 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 9/24/11 1:12 CDT, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/22/2011 4:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/11 3:02 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>>>>> On 22/09/11 7:04 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>> The initial submission got junked so I resubmitted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/knn5p/thoughts_on_immutability_in_d/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the reddit'ing. I launched up google analytics this  
>>>>> morning
>>>>> and noticed a sudden spike. That could only mean one thing :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Out of interest, does anyone have any criticism of my post, esp. if
>>>>> there's any technical inaccuracies (or just disagreement?)
>>>>
>>>> You could have specified that e.g. mutable state can be implemented
>>>> safely with the help of a global hash table.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> If this is allowed by the compiler, doesn't that break all the
>>> guarantees transitive immutability tries to make? Aren't we back to
>>> "faith based programming" this way?
>>
>> Not at all. Global mutable memory is what it is to everyone.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I'm probably missing something, but what are the guarantees given by the  
> type system, if a property is implemented by a getter function:
>
> int globId;
>
> class C
> {
> 	@property id() const { return ++globId; }
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> 	immutable(C) c = new immutable(C);
> 	return c.id;
> }
>
> Is c.id thread-safe? no! Is it constant? no! How does this help in  
> multi-threaded applications that access c?

I have argued about this in the very distant past.

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=68879

We already have a logical-const system, but implementing it is simply  
low-performing and difficult to get right.

-Steve