Comments on: Intent Programming http://ilikeellipses.com/2008/07/16/intent-programming/ the blog for developers who care about more than just code... Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:49:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: mike hall http://ilikeellipses.com/2008/07/16/intent-programming/#comment-2024 mike hall Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:40:57 +0000 http://ilikeellipses.com/2008/07/16/intent-programming/#comment-2024 The WriteOnce construct looks like precisely what I need and is actually more readable and understandable than const IMO. Not having a setter and using readonly works in certain cases, but still not for local variables that need to be set at runtime. The WriteOnce construct looks like precisely what I need and is actually more readable and understandable than const IMO.

Not having a setter and using readonly works in certain cases, but still not for local variables that need to be set at runtime.

]]> By: Jeff Moser http://ilikeellipses.com/2008/07/16/intent-programming/#comment-2022 Jeff Moser Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:46:50 +0000 http://ilikeellipses.com/2008/07/16/intent-programming/#comment-2022 Having immutable state like the C++ "const" keyword allows is very important in concurrent code. This is why the new Parallel Extensions (which will probably be integrated into .net 4.0) include a WriteOnce class that enforce that it's only ever written to once. See http://blogs.msdn.com/pedram/archive/2008/06/02/coordination-data-structures-writeonce-t.aspx It's a little bit hack-ish since it's not part of the language itself, but it's not too bad. For other scenarios, simply not having a setter will usually do on properties and then using readonly where you can. Having immutable state like the C++ “const” keyword allows is very important in concurrent code. This is why the new Parallel Extensions (which will probably be integrated into .net 4.0) include a WriteOnce class that enforce that it’s only ever written to once.

See http://blogs.msdn.com/pedram/archive/2008/06/02/coordination-data-structures-writeonce-t.aspx

It’s a little bit hack-ish since it’s not part of the language itself, but it’s not too bad. For other scenarios, simply not having a setter will usually do on properties and then using readonly where you can.

]]>