Re: 197:4

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