Why can't we define re-assignable const reference variable?

[Christopher Wright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 16/02/2008, Christopher Wright <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What's the difference (save polymorphism) between a pointer to a struct
>>  and a reference to an object?
> 
> I don't understand the question.
> 
> What's the difference between chalk and cheese? What are you getting at?

Well, chalk has a significantly higher calcium content and has usually 
not gone through a cow.

In C++, there's no difference between the two. In D, the difference 
appears to be that there is no syntax separate the reference from the 
object, besides an ugly cast.

I've never heard any explanation of how reassignable const objects would 
break the type system, and it seems to me that, if they would, then you 
shouldn't be able to do:
struct Foo{}
const(Foo)* fptr;