On 1/11/20 12:13 AM, James Cook wrote: > Oh right, yes, that would be nice. > > I'm confused about a couple of things: > > * A module has a list of dependencies (does that mean "things that > depend on it"?), and each rule has a "Parent". Are "Parents" the same > thing as "dependencies"? Can modules depend on modules? Are rules' > parents other rules, modules or both? > > * What do the dependencies or parent relationships actually do? Would > there be some provision that a rule only has power insofar as its > parent rule grants it power, or that its parent module is granted > power by rules in the default module, or something like that? > > Maybe it would help to sketch an example. > > - Falsifian
The idea is that Modules are collections of Rules. Each Module depends on other Modules, and each Rule's parent is a single Module. As for precedence, I'm still working that out, although one Rule defining each Module and its scope seems like it might make sense. A very rough example: R2162 (Switches) and R2509 (Agoran Numbers) are put in a Module creatively called "Switches"; that is, the parent of both Rules is "Switches". Another Module called "Offices" (again, very creatively) contains Rule 1006 (Offices). The Offices module depends on the Switches module. This means that rules in Switches take precedence over the rules in Offices and, importantly, this would mean that rules in Offices get access to the definition of "switch". (This would probably require tweaking R217). Switches could also depend on another module (maybe one containing R478), which would also take precedence over the Rules in the Offices module. That is, dependence is transitive. -- Jason Cobb
