Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:13:21 +0900
> When users are going to use a library made by *someone else*, They usually
> inquire *its spec* (the sequence of required and optional fields, properties
> of each field, function of each method, etc) in advance. I don't think that
> they use the library as they ascertain its spec *through such protocols*.
That's ok. I don't argue about that.
Yet I still argue "immutable" means "its value never
changes, no matter what", and it will be incorrect to
use that term on something that can change.
How about "read-only", for example? I think in general
"read-only" means the user can read it but cannot write
to it, though it doesn't exclude the possibility that the
value changes.
--shiro