Transitive const sucks

[Christopher Wright]

Walter Bright wrote: well, quite a lot, really.


It seems that you're concentrating heavily on const for objects being 
able to ensure thread safety and do a number of other optimizations. 
Basically, as far as the owner of a const reference is concerned, the 
object and all its methods are 'pure'.

So, since, for all functions that can be optimized similarly and whose 
thread safety can be ensured similarly, we will be adding the pure 
keyword, why not use the pure keyword here?

Then a const reference to an object could be a weaker contract that 
allows everything that people have been wishing the new new const would 
allow, if we can find a solution for it that enough people find useable. 
(And by 'we' I mean 'you'.)