Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In object-oriented programming, "immutable interface" is a pattern for designing an immutable object. [1] The immutable interface pattern involves defining a type which does not provide any methods which mutate state. Objects which are referenced by that type are not seen to have any mutable state, and appear immutable.
In object-oriented (OO) and functional programming, an immutable object (unchangeable [1] object) is an object whose state cannot be modified after it is created. [2] This is in contrast to a mutable object (changeable object), which can be modified after it is created. [3]
The immutable keyword denotes data that cannot be modified through any reference. The const keyword denotes a non-mutable view of mutable data. Unlike C++ const, D const and immutable are "deep" or transitive, and anything reachable through a const or immutable object is const or immutable respectively. Example of const vs. immutable in D
The relatively new System.Collections.Immutable package, available in .NET Framework versions 4.5 and above, and in all versions of .NET Core, also includes the System.Collections.Immutable.Dictionary<TKey, TValue> type, which is implemented using an AVL tree. The methods that would normally mutate the object in-place instead return a new ...
There are multiple ways to implement the flyweight pattern. One example is mutability: whether the objects storing extrinsic flyweight state can change. Immutable objects are easily shared, but require creating new extrinsic objects whenever a change in state occurs. In contrast, mutable objects can share state.
In computing, a persistent data structure or not ephemeral data structure is a data structure that always preserves the previous version of itself when it is modified. Such data structures are effectively immutable, as their operations do not (visibly) update the structure in-place, but instead always yield a new updated structure.
It is also not easy to create their equally efficient general-purpose immutable counterparts. For purely functional languages, the worst-case slowdown is logarithmic in the number of memory cells used, because mutable memory can be represented by a purely functional data structure with logarithmic access time (such as a balanced tree). [85]
For example, in OCaml object fields are immutable by default and must be explicitly marked with the keyword mutable to be mutable, while in Scala, bindings are explicitly immutable when defined with val for "value" and explicitly mutable when defined with var for "variable".