Zefram wrote:
> I suggest not attempting to apply this civil procedure to the
> rules-as-a-contract. The rules aren't written in a form where it would
> be appropriate or useful.
By the way, meant to mention to root, too: the main reason I tried the
"Rules-as-a-contract" is it made the rewriting of R101 more elegant and
concise (i.e. R101(iv) and (v)). It seemed to be clever recursion at the
time but I'm not particularly wedded to the idea if it causes difficulty.
Apropos of Zefram's comments (on the mark, btw), based on the recent
mention of wills ("loot the bodies!") I think we need a chancery court
overall, the way things are going around here, please refer to
"Bleak House" for an excellent example we should aspire to :) :).
-Goethe
