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