One of the selling points of immutable data structures is that they are automatically parallelizable.If no mutation is going on, then references to a functional data structure can be passed around bet
Is there a better way of ensuring immutability of the following Test class without returnin a new deep copy of the array every time property Array gets acessed (please assume that DeepCopy() is an ext
Looking into the .NET code, Rectangle.Size returns new Size(Width, Height). Why did Microsoft choose this pattern? Personally, I would have thought that Size would be stored within the structure, and
I have a postgresql table that has a column with data type = \'text\' in which I need to create an index which involves this column being type casted to integer[]. However, whenever I tr开发者_StackOv
Initially, I had assumed yes, because I understood that the invocation list for a multi-cast delegate is implemented as a linked list, which supports constant time insertion and deletion. However, sin
final public class ImmutableWithObject { final Object obj; final List myList; ImmutableWithObject(Object obj1, List list)
Should it be all fields, including super-fields, of a purposely immutable java class \'final\' in order to be thread-safe or开发者_开发技巧 is it enough to have no modifier methods?
Reading C# In Depth, 2nd edition, section 2.1.2 on combining and removing delegates. The subsection title states that \"delegates are immutable\" and that \"nothing about them can be changed.\"In the
Will an immutable class of my own implementation result in memory savings?That is, if two references need to refer to identical instances, they will reference the s开发者_如何学Goame instance even if
I have a factory class that creates objects with circular references. I\'d like them to be immutable (in some sense of the word) too. So I use the following technique, using a closure of sorts: