| Rob Speer on 4 Apr 2003 14:17:01 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [Spoon-business] Re: [spoon-discuss] insta-rule questions |
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:45:18PM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote: > >It hasn't already been destroyed; it's in the process of being > >destroyed. So that doesn't work. But why is that line necessary at all? > > Because it's a list of things that happen "when an insta-rule is > destroyed"; if that list includes destroying the insta-rule, then it'll > recursively call itself indefinitely. _I_ know that. What I asked is, why does destroying itself have to be a step in destroying itself, even inside an infinite-loop-proof wrapper? -- Rob Speer _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss