Fully transitive const is not necessary

[Leandro Lucarella]

Janice Caron, el  4 de abril a las 17:53 me escribiste:
> 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.

I saw it and says nothing new to me.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This homeless guy asked me for some money the other day.
And I was gonna give it to him but then I thought you're
just gonna use it on drugs or alcohol.
And then I thought, that's what I'm gonna use it on.
Why am I judging this poor bastard.