就我个人而言，当我看代码时，下面的代码看起来相当笨拙:

data.value.set ( data.value.get () + 1 ) ;

而不是简单地

数据.值++ ;或数据值 = 数据值 + 1 ;

数据封装在传递类时非常有用，并且您希望确保以受控的方式修改值。然而，当你拥有公共的set和get函数，它们所做的仅仅是将值设置为传递进来的值时，这比简单地传递公共数据结构有什么改进呢?

当我在类中创建私有结构时，我创建了该结构来将一组变量组织到一个组中。我希望能够在类范围内修改该结构，而不是获得该结构的副本并创建新实例。

对我来说，这阻止了有效使用用于组织公共变量的结构，如果我想要访问控制，我会使用类。

我不会说可变性是邪恶的，但可变性通常是程序员急于提供最大功能的标志。在现实中，这通常是不需要的，反过来，使界面更小，更容易使用，更难使用错误(=更健壮)。

其中一个例子就是竞态条件中的读/写和写/写冲突。这些在不可变结构中根本不可能发生，因为写操作不是有效的操作。

另外，我认为可变性几乎从来都不是真正需要的，程序员只是认为它在未来可能会出现。例如，改变日期是没有意义的。相反，在旧日期的基础上创建一个新的日期。这是一个廉价的操作，所以性能不是一个考虑因素。

结构是值类型，这意味着它们在传递时被复制。

所以如果你改变了一份副本，你只是改变了那份副本，而不是原件，也不是周围可能存在的其他副本。

如果你的struct是不可变的，那么所有通过值传递的自动副本都是相同的。

如果你想要改变它，你必须有意识地用修改过的数据创建一个结构的新实例。(非副本)

具有公共可变字段或属性的结构并不邪恶。

Struct methods (as distinct from property setters) which mutate "this" are somewhat evil, only because .net doesn't provide a means of distinguishing them from methods which do not. Struct methods that do not mutate "this" should be invokable even on read-only structs without any need for defensive copying. Methods which do mutate "this" should not be invokable at all on read-only structs. Since .net doesn't want to forbid struct methods that don't modify "this" from being invoked on read-only structs, but doesn't want to allow read-only structs to be mutated, it defensively copies structs in read-only contexts, arguably getting the worst of both worlds.

尽管在只读上下文中处理自突变方法存在问题，但是，可变结构通常提供的语义要比可变类类型优越得多。考虑以下三个方法签名:

struct PointyStruct {public int x,y,z;};
class PointyClass {public int x,y,z;};

void Method1(PointyStruct foo);
void Method2(ref PointyStruct foo);
void Method3(PointyClass foo);

对于每种方法，请回答以下问题:

假设该方法没有使用任何“不安全”代码，它会修改foo吗? 如果在调用方法之前没有对'foo'的外部引用，那么在调用方法之后是否可以存在外部引用?

答案:

问题1: Method1(): no(意图明确) Method2(): yes(明确的意图) Method3(): yes(不确定意图) 问题2: Method1():没有 Method2(): no(除非不安全) Method3():是的

Method1 can't modify foo, and never gets a reference. Method2 gets a short-lived reference to foo, which it can use modify the fields of foo any number of times, in any order, until it returns, but it can't persist that reference. Before Method2 returns, unless it uses unsafe code, any and all copies that might have been made of its 'foo' reference will have disappeared. Method3, unlike Method2, gets a promiscuously-sharable reference to foo, and there's no telling what it might do with it. It might not change foo at all, it might change foo and then return, or it might give a reference to foo to another thread which might mutate it in some arbitrary way at some arbitrary future time. The only way to limit what Method3 might do to a mutable class object passed into it would be to encapsulate the mutable object into a read-only wrapper, which is ugly and cumbersome.

结构数组提供了美妙的语义。给定矩形类型的RectArray[500]，如何将元素123复制到元素456，然后在不影响元素456的情况下，将元素123的宽度设置为555是显而易见的。"RectArray[432] = RectArray[321];…;RectArray[123]。宽度= 555;"。知道Rectangle是一个具有名为Width的整数字段的结构体，就可以知道关于上述语句的所有信息。

Now suppose RectClass was a class with the same fields as Rectangle and one wanted to do the same operations on a RectClassArray[500] of type RectClass. Perhaps the array is supposed to hold 500 pre-initialized immutable references to mutable RectClass objects. in that case, the proper code would be something like "RectClassArray[321].SetBounds(RectClassArray[456]); ...; RectClassArray[321].X = 555;". Perhaps the array is assumed to hold instances that aren't going to change, so the proper code would be more like "RectClassArray[321] = RectClassArray[456]; ...; RectClassArray[321] = New RectClass(RectClassArray[321]); RectClassArray[321].X = 555;" To know what one is supposed to do, one would have to know a lot more both about RectClass (e.g. does it support a copy constructor, a copy-from method, etc.) and the intended usage of the array. Nowhere near as clean as using a struct.

To be sure, there is unfortunately no nice way for any container class other than an array to offer the clean semantics of a struct array. The best one could do, if one wanted a collection to be indexed with e.g. a string, would probably be to offer a generic "ActOnItem" method which would accept a string for the index, a generic parameter, and a delegate which would be passed by reference both the generic parameter and the collection item. That would allow nearly the same semantics as struct arrays, but unless the vb.net and C# people can be pursuaded to offer a nice syntax, the code is going to be clunky-looking even if it is reasonably performance (passing a generic parameter would allow for use of a static delegate and would avoid any need to create any temporary class instances).

就我个人而言，我对Eric Lippert等人对可变值类型的憎恨感到恼火。它们提供了比到处使用的混杂引用类型清晰得多的语义。尽管.net对值类型的支持有一些限制，但在许多情况下，可变值类型比任何其他类型的实体都更适合。

Value types basically represents immutable concepts. Fx, it makes no sense to have a mathematical value such as an integer, vector etc. and then be able to modify it. That would be like redefining the meaning of a value. Instead of changing a value type, it makes more sense to assign another unique value. Think about the fact that value types are compared by comparing all the values of its properties. The point is that if the properties are the same then it is the same universal representation of that value.

正如Konrad所提到的，更改日期也没有意义，因为值代表的是唯一的时间点，而不是具有任何状态或上下文依赖关系的时间对象的实例。

希望这能让你明白。可以肯定的是，它更多的是关于您试图用值类型捕获的概念，而不是实际的细节。

如果你曾经用C/ c++这样的语言编程，结构体可以作为可变的。只要把球传给裁判，没有什么会出错的。我发现的唯一问题是c#编译器的限制，在某些情况下，我无法强迫这个愚蠢的东西使用对结构的引用，而不是Copy(比如当结构是c#类的一部分时)。

所以，可变结构体不是邪恶的，是c#把它们变成了邪恶的。我一直在c++中使用可变结构体，它们非常方便和直观。相比之下，c#让我完全放弃了作为类成员的结构体，因为它们处理对象的方式。他们的便利让我们付出了代价。