[bitc-dev] Is immutability part of type?

Jonathan S. Shapiro shap at eros-os.org
Tue Mar 29 10:58:44 PDT 2011

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Matt Rice <ratmice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.org>
> wrote:
> > So I started a note intending to ask where mutability constraint
> annotations
> > should be allowed, and investigating various options. It was *amazing*
> how
> > fast I ran into cases where two completely reasonable understandings led
> > immediately to conflicts. All cases below are shallow unless otherwise
> > noted, and I'm only considering unboxed types. So consider the difference
> > (if any) between S1 and S2.
> silly question, for the purpose of this discussion is the following
> statement from the spec binding,

It took me several reads to figure out what the question was here.

The answer is "no". The current specification of mutability handling has
turned out not to be workable. The purpose of the current and ongoing
discussion is to figure out what we should do about it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20110329/aac9c8cd/attachment.html 

More information about the bitc-dev mailing list