Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Leandro Lucarella]

Janice Caron, el  4 de abril a las 17:46 me escribiste:
> 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).

What about a real example?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROZO CON FARINGITIS
	-- Crónica TV