On 12/13/2013 04:30 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

> There's some discussion that auto might strip off the top level
> const where it is otherwise allowed, but I'm not sure if that's
> actually going to happen or not.

Ah. I was about to respond by "that top level const is silly" but I now see that it is true only when no mutable reference is involved. So, in order to keep things simple, now I think that the current behavior is better.

Ali