On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 14:54, Nch <nchag...@protonmail.com> wrote: > "Person Switch" is used in multiple rules, but not explicitly defined. This > should probably be fixed, but it also sets a precedent for a common > definition where X Switch is a switch all Xes have if X isn't a pre-defined > type of switch. Does that mean in my Popularity* Contest, I can define a > "Contestant Switch" and have the mean "A switch each Contestant has one of" > without explicitly saying so? > > --- > Nch
I think so. Note that #1 in R2162 says the definition of a type of switch should specify "The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch. No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.". (I've done a bit of interpreting of the grammar in that first sentence of R2162.) Based on usage in the rules, when a rule defines "an X switch", I would say X probably refers to #1 or #2: type(s) of entity possessing, set of possible values (e.g. "boolean switch") or officer (I don't think it's used this way. -- - Falsifian
