Hacker News Reader

Comment by artagnon | Hacker News Reader

Only special ref objects are mutable in Clojure (via STM). I was talking of `setq` in the context of mutating normal variables. It's perhaps a bad idea, and I have to study how LT manages its plugin system without mutation.

View on HN

You don't have to mutate them. You can create a new persistent variant and just mutate the ref to point to the new one. Users of that "variable" store the ref instead of the value (well, actually, they get the choice of which to do). If users have held on to references to the old values, the GC doesn't collect them. If they haven't, the GC can collect them just like any other circumstance involving persistent data structures.

Actually, you can have real mutable variables as fields in a type, although you should think twice about doing so in practice as mutable variables are often not the solution. But here's an example!

(deftype SomeTypeWithMutableFields [^:unsynchronized-mutable some-mutable-field ^:volatile-mutable another-mutable-field])

:unsynchronized-mutable corresponds to a normal mutable Java variable, and :volatile-mutable corresponds to a Java variable with the volatile modifier.

They are private by default, you can only set! them within the lexical scope of the deftype definition. If you needed to expose fast host mutation to the public, I would create a setter/getter interface (via definterface) and implement it on your deftype and use set! locally to mutate the field there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com