Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ]
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 computer science, having value semantics (also value-type semantics or copy-by-value semantics) means for an object that only its value counts, not its identity. [1] [2] Immutable objects have value semantics trivially, [3] and in the presence of mutation, an object with value semantics can only be uniquely-referenced at any point in a program.
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. Mutability allows better object reuse via the caching and re-initialization of old, unused ...
The object that the variable points to is not influenced by that final variable though. In the above example, the origin's x and y coordinates can be freely modified. To prevent this undesirable situation, a common requirement is that all fields of an immutable object must be final, and that the types of these fields must be immutable themselves.
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
This example uses a String as the state, which is an immutable object in Java. In real-life scenarios the state will almost always be a mutable object, in which case a copy of the state must be made. It must be said that the implementation shown has a drawback: it declares an internal class.
The main difference between an arbitrary data structure and a purely functional one is that the latter is (strongly) immutable. This restriction ensures the data structure possesses the advantages of immutable objects: (full) persistency, quick copy of objects, and thread safety.