• bearophile (7/7) Mar 11 2013 Maybe a stupid question: an immutable class instance can't
• Steven Schveighoffer (7/11) Mar 11 2013 Both immutable and mutable cast to const. A const function may be
• bearophile (4/7) Mar 12 2013 Right, no hope, thank you.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Maybe a stupid question: an immutable class instance can't 
change, so is it possible and is it a good idea to remove (to not 
add) the monitor pointer field from immutable class instances, 
saving memory and allowing them to store one more word in the 
same amount of memory?

Bye,
bearophile

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:54:46 -0400, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com>  
wrote:

 Maybe a stupid question: an immutable class instance can't change, so is  
 it possible and is it a good idea to remove (to not add) the monitor  
 pointer field from immutable class instances, saving memory and allowing  
 them to store one more word in the same amount of memory?

Both immutable and mutable cast to const.  A const function may be  
accessing mutable data in a read-only fashion, but it still may need to  
lock the monitor.  Therefore, you must still be able to lock an immutable  
object.

-Steve

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer:

 Both immutable and mutable cast to const.  A const function may 
 be accessing mutable data in a read-only fashion, but it still 
 may need to lock the monitor.

Right, no hope, thank you.

Bye,
bearophile