Why are int
s and double
s immutable? What is the purpose of returning a new object each time you want to change the value?
The reason I ask is because I'm making a class: BoundedInt
, which has a value and an upper and lower bound. So I was wondering: should I make this type immutable too? (Or should it be a struct
?)
The C programming language is the recommended language for creating embedded system drivers and applications. The availability of machine-level hardware APIs, as well as the presence of C compilers, dynamic memory allocation, and deterministic resource consumption, make this language the most popular.
%d is used to print decimal(integer) number ,while %c is used to print character . If you try to print a character with %d format the computer will print the ASCII code of the character.
It is fast The programs that you write in C compile and execute much faster than those written in other languages. This is because it does not have garbage collection and other such additional processing overheads. Hence, the language is faster as compared to most other programming languages.
In C programming language, %d and %i are format specifiers as where %d specifies the type of variable as decimal and %i specifies the type as integer. In usage terms, there is no difference in printf() function output while printing a number using %d or %i but using scanf the difference occurs.
Firstly:
What is the purpose of returning a new object each time you want to change the value?
I think you might be mistaken about how value types work. This isn't some costly operation like you may be imagining; it's simply the overwriting of data (as opposed to, e.g., dynamic allocation of new memory).
Secondly: here's a very simple example of why numbers are immutable:
5.Increase(1);
Console.WriteLine(5); // What should happen here?
Granted, that is a contrived example. So let's consider a couple more involved ideas.
First, there's this one: what if Integer
were a mutable reference type?
class Integer
{
public int Value;
}
Then we could have code like this:
class Something
{
public Integer Integer { get; set; }
}
And:
Integer x = new Integer { Value = 10 };
Something t1 = new Something();
t1.Integer = x;
Something t2 = new Something();
t2.Integer = t1.Integer;
t1.Integer.Value += 1;
Console.WriteLine(t2.Integer.Value); // Would output 11
This seems to defy intuition: that the line t2.Integer = t1.Integer
would simply copy a value (actually, it does; but that "value" is in fact a reference) and thus that t2.Integer
would remain independent of t1.Integer
.
This could be approached another way, of course, keeping Integer
as a value type but maintaining its mutability:
struct Integer
{
public int Value;
// just for kicks
public static implicit operator Integer(int value)
{
return new Integer { Value = value };
}
}
But now let's say we do this:
Integer x = 10;
Something t = new Something();
t.Integer = x;
t.Integer.Value += 1; // This actually won't compile; but if it did,
// it would be modifying a copy of t.Integer, leaving
// the actual value at t.Integer unchanged.
Console.WriteLine(t.Integer.Value); // would still output 10
Basically, immutability of values is something that is highly intuitive. The opposite is highly unintuitive.
I guess that is subjective, though, in all fairness ;)
Integer variables are mutable. However, integer literals are constants, hence immutable.
int i = 0;
// Mutation coming!
i += 3;
// The following line will not compile.
3 += 7;
It's possible to make an integer field immutable, using readonly
. Likewise, an integer property could be get-only.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With