JEP 468 updating non-updatable fields

[Mahied Maruf]

> Holo The Sage Wolf says:
> It seems like the problem is the flexibility combined with the ease of use.
>
> Fundamentally, if you represent *mutation* using records you are bound to
> have mismatches between different levels of the application.

I think it's important to understand this semantic distinction
properly.  You proposed a syntax to prevent derivation of an existing
record if the identifier was changed, but to me this seems also like a
case that could make sense and enforcement of it should be part of the
database layer (ORM etc).  Brian proposed that a seperate class
(or record) could be used just for the identifier and I both agree
with this mental model and am already seeing it being done in e.g.
representation of concatenated primary key where it already is much
more intuitive to perform validation (among other things) this way.

Best regards,
Mahied Maruf <contact at mechite.com>