Why can't we define re-assignable const reference variable?

[Sergey Gromov]

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight at gmail.coim> wrote:
> Janice Caron Wrote:
> 
> > On 18/02/2008, Sergey Gromov <snake.scaly at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One can safely assume that a variable x of type int with a value 4 in it
> > > is a mutable reference to an object 4 of type invariant(int).
> > 
> > Not unless you've redefined the word reference.
> > 
> > At the ABI level, a reference is identical to a pointer. It occupies
> > four bytes of space (eight on a 64 bit machine), and those four bytes
> > contain an address. The difference between a reference and a pointer
> > occurs at the syntax level, not the ABI level.
> > 
> > What you've described there is not a reference at all - it's an int. A
> > reference to an int would occupy eight bytes of memory (four for the
> > reference, and four more for the int).
> 
> I _think_ he was trying to describe it from a logical, rather than 
> implementation standpoint. Logically, x "refers" (using the English 
> term, not the programming term, mind you) to 4. 4 can't be changed (you 
> can't say 4 = 7), but x can be.

You're absolutely correct.

-- 
SnakE