>>68
Sure. What I'm really saying is that the
2+2=4 constraint doesn't have anything to do with integers (the object/variable type) being mutable. It has to do with an abstraction of mathematics that the code doesn't necessarily follow. The complaint of
>>62 is based on an [intentional] mis-application of this abstraction to computer programs, and is easily shown to be absurd.
For example: Suppose no `data' is mutable. Then create an array that addresses every bit in memory. Then this array is immutable, so nothing in memory can be changed. Thus the program cannot complete, no instructions can be loaded, no output can be performed, and the program counter (in a STACK BOY world, since I've already broken the third-and-a-half wall) cannot be saved. Thus a computer is almost completely useless. So `data' should be mutable.