Arne Mertz

> All of this means that const actually provides zero guarantees about an object not being mutated (and even in the case where the object is directly constructed as const, that just means that it's undefined behavior when the object is mutated, not that the compiler actually protects against it being mutated).

if this is the only reason why author thinks that const is a problem, then it is all good. you can do the same thing in C as well. and ofcourse, if you do that, and break things, you get to hold all the pieces as well :)

probably a 'constexpr' semantics is what the author might be looking for ?

arne-mertz article on mutable, available here: https://arne-mertz.de/2017/10/mutable/, which imho, is another side of the const-coin, is quite good as well.

edit-001 : slight change.

Having started using the Internet in the 90's, and thus still remembering Geocities-era websites, I loved that they did this as a webring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webring): each blog post has a link to the next one, making a singly-linked circular list.

Starting with this one, we have:

- http://www.bfilipek.com/2018/04/deprecating-pointers.html

- http://www.modernescpp.com/index.php/no-new-new

- https://www.fluentcpp.com/2018/04/01/cpp-will-no-longer-have-pointers/

- https://blog.tartanllama.xyz/no-pointers/

- https://arne-mertz.de/2018/04/raw-pointers-are-gone/

And it circles back to this one.