On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
> >> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
> >
> > If I'
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
>> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its lef
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its left argument and
returns that, unless it is false, in which cas
> Further, I don't believe "or" is ruleset-defined, so it should have the
> common language meaning, which is exclusive, but I think there is history to
> suggest that ENDORSE or AGAINST means what Tanner intended. (I could be
> completely wrong about this)
Post-research remarks: This is wrong/i
> Turiski,
>
> Your email seems to be the one with funky wrapping; Gondilier's second
> message looks fine to me.
I'm not entirely sure how my wrapping works. I fiddled with some settings; is
it better now?
> (Specifying a Boolean logical OR in the original message would have
> guaranteed failu
On 24 June 2011 20:59, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
The semantics of (a or b) and (a || b) are identical in Perl. (I think.)
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
> > The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us
> > from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether
> > the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense
> > interpretation and pro
> The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us
> from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether
> the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense
> interpretation and probably the intent).
>
> -G.
That's a rather unfor
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 05:18, Pavitra wrote:
> > Are you trying to get at the "select two votes" thing? I think it pretty
> > clearly evaluates down to one selection at the end.
>
> No; comex is arguing that the action is interpreted as (vote(MURPH or
> AGAIN
On 23 June 2011 05:18, Pavitra wrote:
> Are you trying to get at the "select two votes" thing? I think it pretty
> clearly evaluates down to one selection at the end.
No; comex is arguing that the action is interpreted as (vote(MURPH or
AGAINST)); I am arguing for (vote(MURPH) or vote(AGAINST)),
On 06/22/2011 07:47 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 22 June 2011 01:33, omd wrote:
>> Arguments: func(a || b) is not generally equivalent to func(a) || func(b).
>
> Arguments: Is "AGAINST if Murphy sucks, else PRESENT" one vote, or a
> conditional branch of two votes?
Are you trying to get at the "
On 22 June 2011 01:33, omd wrote:
> Arguments: func(a || b) is not generally equivalent to func(a) || func(b).
Arguments: Is "AGAINST if Murphy sucks, else PRESENT" one vote, or a
conditional branch of two votes?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Arguments: We have precedent that the truth value of an action
> statement is true if it succeeds and false if it does not; as many
> Perl I/O functions also follow such a convention, we should treat the
> boolean value of an AGAINST vote as t
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Looks fine-- although, by the way, I'm not sure this clause is
>> necessary in the first place.
>
> Without it, is there anything stopping a Power 1 Rule from being made that
> allows a proposal to take effect using the R106 mechanism? E.g. p
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Hows:
> > "If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that
> > has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules
> > to the contrary notwithstanding."
>
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hows:
> "If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that
> has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding."
Looks fine-- although, by the way, I'm not s
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Yeah, I stared at this for a while when cutting and pasting just now and
> > wondered why it was this way but just left it. How's this:
> >
> > If a decision to adopt a proposal does not result in an
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yeah, I stared at this for a while when cutting and pasting just now and
> wondered why it was this way but just left it. How's this:
>
> If a decision to adopt a proposal does not result in an outcome of
> ADOPTED, it does not take
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 01:50 PM, omd wrote:
> >>When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it
> >>specifies one or more changes to the gamestate.
> >
> > I've always thought this text was really ugly.
>
> I have a feeling that this used to say so
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
> While you're at it, two suggestions:
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > A proposal with a decision on which the option selected by Agora
> > is not ADOPTED does not take effect, rules to the contrary
> > notwithstanding.
>
>
On 06/17/2011 01:50 PM, omd wrote:
>>When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it
>>specifies one or more changes to the gamestate.
>
> I've always thought this text was really ugly.
I have a feeling that this used to say something like "a proposal SHOULD
specify one or more
While you're at it, two suggestions:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A proposal with a decision on which the option selected by Agora
> is not ADOPTED does not take effect, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding.
This is worded this way due to an old scam. It re
22 matches
Mail list logo
