Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Walter Bright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> We are suffering from a communications difficulty caused by you and I
> using the same phrase ("logical const") to mean entirely different
> things. Unless we can agree on a common terminology, we're not going
> to be able to get anywhere with this discussion.

You're right. This thread will go nowhere as long as "logical const" 
isn't defined.

My understanding of logical const, and the meaning I use of it, is the 
C++ notion of a class that uses non-static fields declared as "mutable" 
to implement a class that appears to be const from the user's 
perspective, but actually has changing field values.

Mutating a static member is not logical const.