Zefram wrote: > I think it's dangerous to change interpretation in such a blanket > manner. I think it would be better to define formal terminology by > which individual rules can explicate illegal vs impossible, and then > amend rules piecemeal to use the formal structure.
"Illegal" must be explicitly defined. Right now it occurs in two places, easily amended (and one in fact is in context). Pretty much everything else we do right now falls into the "impossible" category, and this doesn't change that. Seems less dangerous than opening up rule changes to instruments, IMO! -Goethe
