Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Walter Bright]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> If the ultimate goal is support for multiprogramming, then shouldn't the 
> detailed design work should start *there*, with how to do great 
> multiprogramming?  Rather than with const.
> 
> Not saying that you guys have done this, but I know from my own 
> experience doing research that it's easy to get hung up trying to solve 
> a tough but solvable problem that seems relevant for getting from A to 
> B, only to realize in the end that it was not as relevant as I thought.

I think it is fairly obvious that transitive invariant (and const) is 
key to multiprogramming. The transitive closure of the state of 
everything reachable through an object is part of the state of that 
object, and all the troubles with multiprogramming stem from the state 
of an object changing asynchronously.