const

[Russell Lewis]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Russell Lewis wrote:
>> Until we have this fundamental, mathematical understanding of const, 
>> we are just tweaking and hacking and patching in hopes we can come up 
>> with something good enough.
> 
> But the current const regime *is* based on a mathematical notion. The 
> reason the previous regimes failed is not because the notion was wrong, 
> but because we had tried to support some special use cases.

Are you referring to transitive const?  If so, I agree that this is 
*one* forward step in the formalization of const.  A very good, very 
important step.  But it is not, alone, a complete analysis of all of the 
things I described above.

Or am I missing something?