[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 44 BALLOT

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

30/06/2003 17:59:06, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>> Proposal 1574/0: Duties (SkArcher)
>Yes, but I hope to get rid of the clause requiring all Duties to be in 
>that rule. That's what keywords are for.

I did send a reply about this, but I think it got chewed up by my server

The wording of the rule only requires the duties to be listed there - it does not say that the duties must have their entire clauses and effects there, just 
that a list of them must be kept there. The only reason the Duty Duty is fully explained is that - well, where else is it going to go?

I am aware that keywords are theoretically for this, but frankly i find that the keywords system isn't greatly implemented and some rules are missing 
essential keywords

hmm, i feel a prop coming on



SkArcher


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss