Transitive const sucks

[Walter Bright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> But then, I don't understand Walter's objections to "logical
> constness".
> 
> Seems pretty simple to me. If a function is logically const but not 
> truly const, then don't declare it pure.
> 
> Conversely, if it's not declared pure, then it can have logical
> constness.
> 
> Isn't that problem solved?

No. Pass a reference to a const through a non-pure function to a pure one.