Fully transitive const is not necessary

[guslay]

Janice Caron Wrote:

> On 02/04/2008, guslay <guslay at gmail.com> wrote:
> So apart from a little bit of terminology, we're agreeing.

Yes, it seems that we agree on a lot of things, yet reach different conclusions. I'm not sure yet how much of it is still due to misunderstandment, or just different expectations about the language.

I still think that some valid points have been raised by this thread, have not been answered. I understand that language design is about compromise, I just don't see what is the negative counterpart of allowing mutable. And I certainly don't see how claims such as (from the Const article):

"not having mutable facilitates code reviews" 

and 

"The problem with logical const is that const is no longer transitive. Not being transitive means there is the potential for threading race conditions..."

can be considered something other than gross overstatements in the lights of our discussion.