On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> It feels weird not to reuse the Switches framework for this. I realize you’re
> reinstating an existing rule, but is it worth refactoring this to avoid
> reintroducing another kind of recordable state?
That's actually the main reason I'm
On Jan 17, 2017, at 1:06 AM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> {Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the folowing text:
> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
> existence.
>
> Each asset
{Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the folowing text:
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
existence.
Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
lack an
3 matches
Mail list logo