205:3 (was 205:1) VALID

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