Fully transitive const is not necessary

[guslay]

Janice Caron Wrote:

> On 02/04/2008, guslay <guslay at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  You have just made the mistake to assume that const implies thread-safe.
> 
> No I didn't. I stated that const is a /necessary/ condition for thread
> safety, but nowhere did I claim it was a /sufficient/ condition.
> 
> I assumed (demonstrated, in fact), that mutable implies thread-unsafe,
> but not that const implies thread-safe. There is a difference.

If const does not imply thread-safety, mutable clearly does not. No one as claimed that. Bizarrely, I was under the impression that you made it sound like it was my position. At least we agree on that.