Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: initial comments ChurlSoo Joo (15 Sep 2009 09:01 UTC)
Re: initial comments Shiro Kawai (15 Sep 2009 09:44 UTC)
Re: initial comments ChurlSoo Joo (15 Sep 2009 14:13 UTC)
Re: initial comments Shiro Kawai (15 Sep 2009 19:06 UTC)
Re: initial comments ChurlSoo Joo (16 Sep 2009 06:21 UTC)
Re: initial comments Shiro Kawai (16 Sep 2009 06:57 UTC)
Re: initial comments ChurlSoo Joo (16 Sep 2009 10:13 UTC)

Re: initial comments Shiro Kawai 16 Sep 2009 06:59 UTC

>From: ChurlSoo Joo <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: initial comments
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