Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Janice Caron]

On 04/04/2008, Janice Caron <caron800 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 04/04/2008, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Why don't you just do something like this:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >  If nonstate is not part of the object, why to put it in it?
>
>
> You're having the same problem with Steven's jargon as I had. I found
>  that terminology confusing. Rest assured, we /are/ talking about part
>  of the object. If we come up with a better way of describing it, we'll
>  tell the world.
>
>  What we're talking about here is a member whose constancy cannot be
>  changed (but whose value maybe can).

See the thread "unpaintable..." for an alternative description of the solution.