> C++ has a perfect match for Rust’s mutability: const and non-const.

Rust has inherited mutability, while I believe const in C++ is shallow. I don't think it's a perfect match.

members of a const struct are also const.

Now you obviously can still have escape hatches and cast the const away whenever you want.

> members of a const struct are also const.

Yes, but if your struct contains references, the constness doesn't apply to what those references point to. In Rust it does.

For pointers, const only affects whether you can re-set it to point to something else, not the pointee.

Nothing prevents you from building a smart pointer with those semantics though, std::indirect is an example of this (arguably closer to Rust's Box).

Sure, but my point is that the semantics between C++ and Rust are different, and are therefore not an exact match as the article stated.

In C++, you define the semantics yourself.

	▲	wtetzner a day ago \| parent [-]
		No, const semantics are defined by the language definition.