From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 19:08:05 PST
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Andre Engels wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steve Gardner wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Andre Engels wrote: > > > > > 1) If no other rule determines the precedence between two Rules, the Rule > > > with the lowest number has precedence. > > > 2) In order to keep this rule effective, no other rule or combination of > > > rules may determine or try to determine every possible case of > > > precedence. > > > > Andre, this submission is datestamped nearly 9 hours after 205:2, > > with which it seems to be inconsistent. Still, you labelled it > > '205:1' - should I assume you were unaware of the earlier postings? > > No, if it is called 205:1 that is an accident, it should have been > "Re: 205:1" forgetting to change the title. It is intended as 205:3. I > don't see why it is inconsistent with 205:2 - the first clause is a > precedence clause, the second is not. OK, I guess you're right about that. 205:3 is VALID. STYLE for 205:3 +0.5 for being on theme -0.5 because (1) is fairly pedestrian +0.5 for a creative attempt in (2) to stop things getting too ridiculous. We'll see if it works... ----- +0.5 total -- Steve Gardner | School of Computer Science | I've only just realized and Software Engineering | how self-conscious I am. gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au | -- Rule Date: 2003-03-21 03:08:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST