Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Janice Caron]

On 02/04/2008, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  >>  Clearly, it is
>  >> ALREADY
>  >> POSSIBLE to have logical const

Clearly it isn't.

> > We are suffering from a communications difficulty caused by you and I
>  > using the same phrase ("logical const") to mean entirely different
>  > things. Unless we can agree on a common terminology, we're not going
>  > to be able to get anywhere with this discussion.
>
>
> The communications gap is not in that I do not understand what logical const
>  is.  The communications gap is that you are not understanding that what I
>  have posted is semantically equivalent to logical const.

Look, how about this. How about if, instead of calling such classes
"logically const", you instead describe them as "classes whose methods
modify global data"? (or "globby" for short). That would keep me
happy.

In return, I'll agree to call classes with mutable member variables
"classes with mutable member variables". ("muty" for short).

Hopefully, we can then have a conversation without getting confused,
or arguing over what words mean.



>  What I am showing
>  is that transitive const is the same as logical const because you can use
>  the always mutable global state as part of the class state.  What this
>  translates to is that logical const is sufficient for multi-programming as
>  long as the correct rules are chosen.

I just don't get what you're saying. It doesn't make sense to me.


>  What I am asking is, because semantically logical const is possible

I don't even know what you mean by that.