On Thursday 06 December 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I'll add in passing that if VVLOP was even defined as a "number" or > "integer" or something, I'd forbid the action. But defining it as a > "parameter", where "parameter" is not rules-defined and very broad in > its common and mathematical definitions, opens the door to all sorts of > mathematical and semantic abstractions (e.g. sets) being performed on > it, only limited by the context of the mechanisms allowing the changes.
If the action was forbidden, would I have wasted my 0 VCs, or would the "spending" of them not take place? (Compare N=-1 in 2126 b) if the guard were not there.) In the former case, I would disagree with the precedent, as it doesn't make sense that the rules would allow me to spend my VCs to do nothing, where an alternate definition would make them work perfectly fine. Not appealing this though ;)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
