Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Walter Bright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> I agree that transitive const can achieve more demonstrably correct code
> but I don't think it follows that this will necessarily improve productivity.
> My experience with const in C++ is that it actually reduces productivity
> because I spend more time dealing with the misapplication of const than
> I gain from whatever bugs the application of const may have prevented.
> In fact, in all my time as a programmer I can't think of a single instance
> where I've encountered a bug that could have been prevented through
> the use of const.

C++ const is more of a suggestion than anything verifiable by the 
compiler and static analysis. This will become more obvious as C++ tries 
to compete in the multiprogramming arena. The C++ compiler *cannot* help 
with multiprogramming issues; the C++ programmer is entirely dependent 
on visual inspection of the code, making C++ a tedious, labor intensive 
language for multiprogramming.

How many times have you looked at the documentation for a function API, 
and wondered which of its parameters were input and which were output?

When you talk about the "misapplication" of const, does that mean 
failure to understand what the specific API of a function is?