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

[Janice Caron]

On 16/02/2008, Christopher Wright <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
> generic programming != type system

I can't argue with that! :-) Perhaps I should have said, it will break
/either/ generic programming /or/ the type system. I suppose I was
thinking that if you have new syntax, and you want to keep generic
programming, then somehow you must force the new syntax to work for
all types, and /that/ breaks the type system, but I guess I was
probably thinking too far ahead there. :-)