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

[none]

> == Quote from Janice Caron (caron800 at googlemail.com)'s article
> > But I just want to clear up one misconception. You /cannot/ do that in
> > C++. References in C++ are /never/ rebindable.
>
> That's a terminology issue, to make it clear:
> class C {}
> D                           C++
> =========================   ===========================
> reference: C c = new C();   pointer:    C *c = new C();
> pointer:   C* cp = &c;      ptr-to-ptr: C **cp = &c;

I just want to make it clear again, nobody has what you called 'misconception'.

By using my table, I'm saying '_reference_ in D is similar to _pointer_ in C++'!

I think you have a 'misconception' that '_reference_ in D is similar to
_reference_ in C++'!

Just as you said: "References in C++ are /never/ rebindable"; but '(non-const)
reference in D' is rebindable

class C {}
C c;
c = c1;
c = c2;  // rebind!

So '_reference_ in D is similar to _pointer_ in C++', not reference in C++!

Since 'in C++, const C* p; // non-const pointer, const data' is allowed, why
cannot we have 'non-const reference, const data' in D?