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

[Sean Reque]

> For what it's worth, I was arguing exactly what you are arguing now
> (that it should be allowable to modify the class reference of a const
> class), several weeks back. But Walter patiently explained why it was
> not a good idea, and his arguments were sound, so I got convinced. In
> other words, this isn't a new argument - you might want to check out
> some of that history (although I'm not sure I can advise on what to
> search for - "const" would probably yeild rather too many hits!)

Well if Walter wants people to use his language, he needs to do some better convincing. I looked around and couldn't find anything searching around for 15 minutes. I liked D when I first learned about it, but I keep finding out things that were "already discussed" that I'm still convinced are plain wrong, and still haven't seen a good reason as to why they are right, which convinces me more each time that D will never hit mainstream.