What is Invariant Good For?

[Jesse Phillips]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:42:32 +0100, Bruce Adams wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:52:26 +0100, Walter Bright
> <walter at nospamm-digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6ui1q/
d_what_is_invariant_good_for/
> 
> I disagree with the suggestion that immutable is a better choice than
> invariant. To me, perhaps still wrongly in a C++ mindset, mutable and
> immutable are in terms of the clients ability to modify the data whereas
> invariant data is invariant in the normal sense because it implies a
> contract. Namely that X(t+n) == X(t=0) for at least the duration of any
> function using X.
> 
> It strikes me that 'dibblego' is some kind of troll or an extreme pedant
>  from a parallel experience.
> I'm not sure how much communicating with it is educational. I understand
> all the terms he's using but none of the meanings he is ascribing to
> them. And calling you a pseudo intellectual for no obvious reason
> strikes me as very troll-like not to mention rude.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bruce.

I would like to agree with you here, on the mutable and 'dibblego' point.

Everything 'dibblego' says is done in a way that he uses many big words 
that he understands the meaning for, but fits them together in a way that 
is incorrect but sounds like it is an undeniable truth. I have only come 
across this such graceful tactic once before, the true trolls, Jerry Lee 
Cooper

http://jerryleecooper.com/ a fan blog of his great work.