Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Janice Caron]

On 02/04/2008, Christian Kamm
<kamm.incasoftware at shift-at-left-and-remove-this.de> wrote:
> Steven is arguing that thread safety does not require transitive const
>  guarantees.
> <snip>

Thank you. That was a perfect explanation. I get it now.


>  class C
>  {
>   mutable int x;
>   void foo() const { x++; } // const but can't be pure
>   void bar() pure
>   { /* can't do anything in here you couldn't have done above */ }
>  }

But you could equally well write it like this:

    class C
    {
        int x;
        void foo() { x++; }
        void bar() pure
        { /* can't do anything in here you couldn't have done above */ }
    }

If it can change, then don't call it const. Seems a simple enough rule to me.