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