On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 14:21 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > Proposal: Scheduled actions > > This should probably explicitly spell out the order that actions occur > in the event multiple actions are scheduled at the same time and the > order is significant.
Agreed, it used to come up all the time in B when it had the rule. Also, a quick warning: B repealed the rule because it caused too many problems. People here who know the history of B will know that if even B does that, the rule must be pretty problematic... -- ais523
