Re: [s-d] [s-b] Definitely not a Bribe Proposal

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's a version without messed up formatting:


> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:58:14 -0800
> From: emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Definitely not a Bribe Proposal
> > > I stand by my judgement, both because "Official Document" is indeed> undefined, and because Rule 8 does not clearly nullify comment text> within proposals (at least "shall not have the force of Rule" is> moot, as proposals don't have the force of Rule anyway). In fact,> in the specific case of proposals to create or amend a rule such> that it includes comment text, Rule 8 *should not* nullify that> text within the context of the proposal's effects if adopted.> > Oh, and Rule 8 is also potentially subject to the old "unmatched> delimiter -> large chunk of the ruleset commented out" bug, so> whoever proposes a fix to the above issues should clear that up> as well while they're at it.


I don't think so as the word "next" is used so there must be double close square brackets following double open square brackets and only the first double close square brackets that are arrived at will be taken as the closing delimiter, with the text between the two character sequences "[[" and "]]" being taken as the comment.

So "]] (comment) [[" wouldn't work, as that is "[[" and the previous "]]", and "[[ ]] (comment) [[ ]]" wouldn't work, as the the first "]]" arrived at closes the outside comment ("next" does not mean "second along"). 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss