[bitc-dev] Is immutability part of type?

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Matt Rice <ratmice at gmail.com> wrote:

> it seems as though ImmType has a 'mutability type contstraint' of
> immutable and not mutable,
> while Unboxed Type has a mutability type constraint of unspecified.
>

The intent in these examples is that mutable is intended except where
specified or contradictory.

The reason for this is to simplify the discussion. If the language has both
mutable and non-mutable qualifiers, then you end up needing to deal with
meta-construction issues, which is the innovation of Swaroop's thesis. For
the present discussion, let's make the assumption that the only qualifiers
in the language are those that "take away" mutability, and that in the
absence of qualification a structure or field is presumptively mutable.


shap
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20110330/6a8c14fb/attachment.html