G. wrote:
> 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.
What would y'all say to making ownership an asset switch? It would
necessitate a bit of rewriting to the current asset rules, but it gives
us all the anti-ambiguity safeguards that already exist for switches.
A "pure" safeguard for the asset rules might look something like this:
If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its owner would
otherwise be indeterminate or logically undecidable, it is owned
by the Lost and Found Department.
...but that seems inelegant compared to reusing the switch rules.
-twg
