Yeah, it's a pretty tough call. When copying an immutable object in some sense it should always be fine to just return the original object.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Andre P. <[email protected]> wrote: > After thinking about this a bit more deeply, it occurred to me that maybe > this *is* the right behavior. > After all, this is an immutable type, so I really shouldn't be modifying > the internal values of array fields anyway. > > If this immutable type array field happened to have a massive array > attached to it, > it might make sense to have both immutable objects point at that same > array > provided that array could not be mutated. > > The problem is that one *can* mutate the underlying array and > undisciplined sods like me go and doing things like the above. >
