|
|
|
|
|
by hatthew
49 days ago
|
|
It seems like this is proposing syntactic sugar to make mutating and non-mutating operations be on equal footing. > The more interesting example is reassigning the deeply nested l to make the cat inside older, without mutating the original cat Isn't that mutating l, though? If you're concerned about mutating cat, shouldn't you be concerned about mutating l? |
|
That means if someone has a reference to the original l, they do not see the change (because l is immutable. Both of them).