From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 10:40:31 PST
"Leonhard, Christian" <Christian_Leonhard_at_ADP.com> writes: > > Doesn't propose a new rule. > > This rule's requirement was meant to be implicit: that each box contain > further boxes, each with a longer name than the last. Hmm, if *I* were the judge, I would have said this requirement was so implicit as to be without force, and would have docked a style point or so for not imposing a restriction. But imposing a restriction isn't required for validity. And I'm not the judge... -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-11-25 18:40:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST