Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In C and C++, volatile is a type qualifier, like const, and is a part of a type (e.g. the type of a variable or field). The behavior of the volatile keyword in C and C++ is sometimes given in terms of suppressing optimizations of an optimizing compiler: 1- don't remove existing volatile reads and writes, 2- don't add new volatile reads and writes, and 3- don't reorder volatile reads and writes.
immutable is a stronger variant of const, indicating data that can never change its value, while const indicates data that cannot be changed through this reference: it is a constant view on possibly mutable data. shared is used for shared data in multi-threading (as volatile was briefly used for in C++).
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.
Many new keywords added (and the new "spaceship operator", operator <=>), such as concept, constinit, [38] consteval, co_await, co_return, co_yield, requires (plus changed meaning for export), and char8_t (for UTF-8 support). [57] And explicit can take an expression since C++20. [58] Most of the uses of the volatile keyword have been deprecated ...
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]
Conversely, the mutable keyword allows a class member to be changed even if an object was instantiated as const. Even functions can be const in C++. The meaning here is that only a const function may be called for an object instantiated as const; a const function doesn't change any non-mutable data.
The state of an object cannot be changed after construction. This implies both that only read-only data is shared and that inherent thread safety is attained. Mutable (non-const) operations can then be implemented in such a way that they create new objects instead of modifying the existing ones.
This intuition is unfortunately false in most OOP languages, in particular in all those that allow mutable objects. Subtype polymorphism as enforced by the type checker in OOP languages (with mutable objects) cannot guarantee behavioral subtyping in any context. Behavioral subtyping is undecidable in general, so it cannot be implemented by a ...