Re: [s-b] Consultation 47

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

I claim this to be CONSISTENT.

- Hose

On Nov 25, 2007 11:44 PM, Josiah Worcester <josiahw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sunday 25 November 2007 09:08:41 Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> > > {{
> > > Does a device (unique or not) need a corresponding, existing blueprint
> > > to be defined?
> > > }}
> > >
> >
> > This is Consultation Number 47 and I assign it to Priest pikhq.
> >
> > Billy Pilgrim
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >
> By rule 3-12, a device must be defined, and a blueprint may be used to define
> it. However, it does not say that only a blueprint may define a device. So,
> anything that defines a device needs to be attached to a device, but this
> need not be a blueprint.
>
> So, I answer consultation 47 NO.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business