ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: >> In general, drafting with precedence deferral is bad form, because it >> has the potential to bring about complex webs of precedent that must >> be unraveled in order to interpret the rules. If the rules are >> instead drafted to eliminate conflicts, then they're easier to read. >> In fact, I would support removing the existing unused deferral clause >> from R1030 altogether. > Didn't there used to be a rule that went around changing the precedences > of other rules at random? "This rule defers to all other rules that do > not contain this sentence."
The Virus. Later, it was changed to something like "The rest of this rule has no effect, except for this sentence; two weeks after this sentence is added, it is automatically removed". It works better if there are lots of short Power<2 rules.
