Re^11: The fallacy of the *requirement* for read-only instance variables.

Oh really? I find it very practical that my number literals are immutable.

In Java strings are immutable, but you can still assing a new String to a String-typed variable. Perl follows the exact same model for numbers. Why is this suddenly meaningless, but not in the Java case? You might say because you can think of mutable strings but not of mutable numbers, but that's just a limit of your imagination.

Also declaring something that contradicts your line of thought as "meaningless" without any explanation isn't very good style of discussion.

Perl 6 - second systems done right

Comment on Re^11: The fallacy of the requirement for read-only instance variables.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: The fallacy of the requirement for read-only instance variables. by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 18, 2011 at 12:44 UTC
Perl follows the exact same model for numbers. No, it doesn't. As I demonstrated above, variables holdiing numeric values are NOT immutable. Constants are (to use your own word) obviously immutable. But variables are not constants. And variables are not immutable. Also declaring something that contradicts your line of thought as "meaningless" without any explanation isn't very good style of discussion. No explanation is necessary. You already demonstrated above that you know this is nothing more than an obvious non sequitur to the threads subject. Hence, further discussion is meaningless and pointless. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^12: The fallacy of the *requirement* for read-only instance variables.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 18, 2011 at 12:44 UTC

Perl follows the exact same model for numbers.

No, it doesn't. As I demonstrated above, variables holdiing numeric values are **NOT** immutable. Constants are (to use your own word) obviously immutable. But variables are not constants. And variables are not immutable.

Also declaring something that contradicts your line of thought as "meaningless" without any explanation isn't very good style of discussion.

No explanation is necessary. You already demonstrated above that you know this is nothing more than an obvious non sequitur to the threads subject. Hence, further discussion is meaningless and pointless.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

[reply]