Re: 205:6

From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 20:00:20 PST


On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Ed Murphy wrote:

> There is NO... rule 6!
> 
> (Yes, there is, mate; this is bloody well it.)
> 
> If two clauses within a single rule would otherwise be in conflict, then
> the later one takes precedence over the earlier one.

VALIDITY:

205:2 only 1/3 of statements in the rule determine precedence -- OK.
205:3 doesn't try to determine every case of precedence -- OK.
205:4 doesn't mention wombats, but also doesn't take precedence over any
      rule or rules that take precedence over 205:4 -- OK.

205:6 is VALID.

STYLE for 205:6

-1.0 for lacking any new restrictions.
+0.5 for useful precedence determiner.
-0.5 for slightly dull precedence determiner.
+0.5 for indirect self-reference.
----
-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 04:00:34 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST