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?
>> In C++, there's no difference between the two.
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
>     S * p = whatever;
>     S & r = whatever;
> 
> p can be rebound. r can't.

Hm. Perhaps I should learn c++ before talking about it.

>> I've never heard any explanation of how reassignable const objects would
>> break the type system,
> 
> Because you'd need a brand new syntax to do it, and whatever syntax
> you chose, it would break generic programming.

generic programming != type system

I forgot about that argument, though. Thanks for reminding me. The 
solution, of course, is first-class references for everything, which 
Walter isn't willing to do. In almost every circumstance, it'd be 
duplicated functionality.