On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you're missing the point. The exact restriction in the first > paragraph of R1586 is "Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same > name or nickname." Note the use of upper-case CANNOT, which by R2152 > means that "Attempts to perform the described action are > unsuccessful." In your example, there is no attempt to perform any > action whatsoever, so it is unclear exactly how R1586 would have any > effect on the situation.
I'd argue that the action of coming to have the same name or nickname as another rule-defined entity is what's impossible, so in this case Rule 9991 would fail to take effect when the proposal to create it passed (assuming they were created in order with the text shown). On the other hand, MMI terms should probably only be used when the rule using them is explicitly defining an action, not when some action is implied. Rule 2153 suffers from the same sort of thing, although SHOULD is a lot different than CANNOT.
