Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Janice Caron" wrote
> On 02/04/2008, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> > 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.
>

Sure.  Now I'll restate what I have been stating in these terms:  globby 
classes are EQUIVALENT to logically const classes (or "muty" classes as you 
call them).  Since they are equivalent, and we can have globby classes today 
with transitive const, so what is the problem with allowing muty classes? 
How would this break the const system?

-Steve