On 3/2/2020 8:11 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > On Monday, March 2, 2020, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >>> But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to >>> it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and >> I'd >>> agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is >> still >>> being rented out lmao). >>> >> >> You'd agree to declaring Coin holdings to be fundamentally ambiguous as a >> result of an ambiguous rule? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if >> many people would.
Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > on its default value. I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in an ambiguous condition. And there are midway measures anyway. E.g. It will be certain everyone has at least as many coins as they did before the rule took effect. That uncertainty can be tracked and error propagation may be limited - only having effect whenever a transaction would put eir known balance at exactly -1. -G.
