On Saturday 7 June 2008 12:14:41 Ed Murphy wrote: > Pavitra wrote: > > > There is, I think, a precedent somewhere to the effect that a state of > > affairs can remain in place even when it can no longer come into being. > > Something involving holding an office, or perhaps MwoP. So it would be > > unreasonable to interpret "CANNOT have" as synonymous with "CANNOT come > > to have". > > This is explicitly the case wrt judge assignments.
Ah, interesting. If R1868 finds it necessary to spell it out, then (exceptio probat regulam) "have" is equal to "come to have" elsewhere. Yes? Pavitra
