Background information to this posting was in a very recent summary.

Tony Hansen <hansen@pegasus.att.comm>
    [In response to a very early version, long before I posted] "Yes,
    the idea has been bantied around somewhat and there does seem to
    be a need for something like what you propose. I think it is
    definitely worth posting for further discussion...."

Dag Bruck <dag@control.lth.se>
    "I think your proposal is interesting, but I suggest you extend it
    with a discussion of ~const member functions."  Done.  Dag, thanks
    again for your time in looking at this proposal several times
    before I posted it.

Ron Guilmette <rfg@ncd.com>
    "I very much liked your ~const proposal.  The only thing that I
    would suggest is that you make it (symmetrically) apply to both
    const and to volatile."  Currently, ~volatile and similar
    constructs are mentioned but not discussed in my proposal.  See
    another message in this clump with a header containing "Possible
    generalizations"...

Jim Adcock <jimad@microsoft.UUCP>
    "I support this ~const idea.  I think it helps resolve a lot of
    the 'does const mean const?' debates."  "...iff we use this
    opportunity to [deprecate cast-from-const]."  Agreed.  For
    details, <see the message whose header contains "Fate of
    cast-from-const."
--
  Tom Ngo
  ngo@harvard.harvard.edu
  617/495-1768 lab number, leave message