On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >about why exactly I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by > >announcement" whenever it makes sense. > > I think it might be good to have a rule which states the metaphysics of > action on Agora lol (this relates to the telepathy problem too actually.) > Proto: Whenever you CAN perform an action, without it being stated the method > via the which you can perform such a CAN, you CAN (and must) perform it by > announcement.
Um, why the must, it turns everything you CAN do into a requirement... And should the default work for SHALL and MAY. And if so, does one overrule the other? E.g. if one rule says you CAN, and another rule says you CANNOT, the issue is solved with rule precedence. But if one rule says SHALL, and another rule says CANNOT, does the explicit CANNOT always overrule the implicit SHALL -> CAN, or is the rule precedence method also used? The original SHALL versus CAN distinction is that they were completely orthogonal to each other, now we're merging so should look at conflicts and collisions.
