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

[Bill Baxter]

Derek Parnell wrote:
>  
>> Well if Walter wants people to use his language, he needs to do some better convincing.
> 
> I'm starting to suspect that in the effort to make the const system simple,
> it has become simplistic.

I'm ok with simplistic as long as simple, common things remain simple.

Don't know whether that's the case or not currently.

--bb