Logical const

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:22:01 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:00:43 -0500, Bruno Medeiros  
> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:

>> The above are not trivial differences, so I do not agree that it  
>> constitutes full logical const, only a limited form of it. More  
>> concretely, it doesn't constitute logical const in in the sense where  
>> you can use that as argument to say "logical const already exists, it's  
>> just clunky to use", so let's add it to the language formally. Like if  
>> mutable members where just syntax sugar, or a betterment of safety  
>> rules.
>
> I disagree, I think it does prove logical const already exists.  How do  
> you define logical const?

I'll add to this that synchronization issues can be handled.  They should  
not play a role in 'does logical const exist', they should only play a  
role in 'does efficient logical const exist'.

-Steve