From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 22:21:31 PST
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Jesse Welton wrote: > Richard S. Holmes wrote: > > > > "Leonhard, Christian" <Christian_Leonhard_at_ADP.com> writes: > > > > > 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. > > I agree fully on all points. And, I daresay Judge Nathan implicitly > agrees with the first point, as he judged 197:5 to be VALID, despite > the fact that it clearly contradicts the notion that each box must > contain further boxes. Another way to look at the restrictions of 197:4 and 197:5 is that the rules define restrictions that need to be followed only if some other condition is met. Take 197:4 - one could say that only if a box is found inside another box, then the new box must have a name that is longer than the original box. However, further rules are free to have boxes that do not contain further additional boxes. Now take 197:5 - the restriction here is more explicit. If a rule sets up a condition where you reach the end of a boxes within boxes set, 197:5 sets up a requirement that the condition must be dealt with in a specific way. With those assumptions in place, you have restrictions governing two different ways of handling the opening of boxes. There are still an infinite variety of ways of dealing with unopened boxes that aren't governed by the restrictions of 197:4 and 197:5. Of course, the rules also set up plenty of landmines for future rules to run into... :) Just my FB0.02 worth. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) -- Rule Date: 2002-11-27 06:32:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST