Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Walter Bright]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> The communications gap is not in that I do not understand what logical const 
> is.  The communications gap is that you are not understanding that what I 
> have posted is semantically equivalent to logical const.

A static member is not semantically equivalent to a non-static member, 
that's why both are supported. A static member is part of global state, 
not the state of the object itself.