3 ms·
It is unfortunate that the length of the `immutable` seems to ergonomically discourage its use. I know it's really hard to go back on language design decisions,
by bjz_ 12y ago
It is unfortunate that the length of the `immutable` seems to ergonomically discourage its use. I know it's really hard to go back on language design decisions, but have there been any thoughts about providing a shorter alternative?
- WalterBright 12y agoIt used to be called "invariant". We found ourselves constantly explaining to people that "invariant" types were immutable. Bowing to the obvious, we changed it to "immutable". This has been highly successful in that people immediately understand it. Nobody ever found a shorter, equally clear term.
- bjz_ 12y agoYeah - naming things is hard. I agree that `immutable` is clearer than `invariant`. I would suggest `imm`, but that is damn ugly and more opaque. :(