[bitc-dev] Mutability

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 19:17 -0400, Swaroop Sridhar wrote:
> Swaroop Sridhar wrote:
> > iii) The issue we came across for literals wrt mutability is actually 
> > true for all constructors in general. If I write:
> > 
> > (define x:(mutable t) T)
> > 
> > then, x is a mutable value of type (mutable t) constructed from T the 
> > constructor for type t.
> > 
> 
> To be a little more explicit here, what I am saying here is that we 
> should probably reconsider the use of typeclasses to deal with 
> mutability. Otherwise, every type will have its own type class that 
> qualifies the value constructors of that type (literals being a special 
> case).

Given the reply that I just gave concerning mutability, is this still an
issue?

shap