Dan on 2 Mar 2001 06:58:07 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spoon-discuss: prop interpretation 

No objection.
Poulenc

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> It appears that a clause was missing in P416. Clearly, the first clause 
> amends R317, but the remaining three paragraphs seem to be the text of a 
> new Rule. Since I believe this is the only reasonable interpretation, I'm 
> interpreting it that way for the purposes of updating the Rules. I just 
> wanted to let everyone know that's what I'm doing so we can take care of it 
> now in case anyone objects.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
> 
>