Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Janice Caron]

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).