On Dec 3, 2007 10:02 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 9:43 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nothing prevents that. Another contract could define nkep in a
> > completely different way. Unless particularly crafted to mess with my
> > action, and defined prior to my action taking place, it would have no
> > bearing on the results of Agora nkeping.
>
> But which version of nkep would have occurred? Clearly not both,
> since it can only be one action.
>
doing nkep itself is still an action which has no actual changes
associated with it. The Fookiemyartug contract simply causes something
to happen when nkep occurs. I could make a contract that says:
{
When root supports my attempts to make Agora do silly things, I do a
little dance
}
Does this mean that there is now ambiguity as to what your supporting
does? no, it simply means that more than one thing occurs as a result
of your supporting. The same would be true if another contract
referenced nkep.
Also note that nkep really has not been defined. It is still utterly
nonsensical. The Fookiemyartug contract simply indicates an effect
that occurs when a nomic commits that nonsensical act. This is further
evidence for the CFJ appeal.
BobTHJ
