comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> This proposal would be ineffective because you don't specify where
>> in the rules to add the new texts. ("Append" works, "append after X"
>> works, "add" does not work.)
>
> Is there a precedent for this?Ordinary language; "add" could mean "add at the end" or "add at the beginning", among other things. Contrast e.g. "append" and "prepend".
