> It seems sort of odd that the type is immutable yet I can overwrite data of that type. I suppose that would only be prohibited if the array were immutable.
It's not the array that's immutable, it's the values contained therein. I agree that it's a bit weird to have to replace the whole immutable rather than just the field you want. IIRC there are plans to improve on that. On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:43:56 PM UTC-4, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > > Bitstypes are laid out contiguosly in memory. Your "workaround" way is a > good way of doing it and will be fast.
