I agree that we disagree. Your comment elsewhere: > It's all about the underhanded trick(s) with the pointers, yours will never compile. I'm forcing clang to d

I agree that we disagree. Your comment elsewhere: > It's all about the underhanded trick(s) with the pointers, yours will never compile. I'm forcing clang to do horrible things. Indicates, to me, that you see this as a strange behaviour that you're forcing the compiler into when in fact this is exactly the intended (and expected) semantics of const.