Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.

shadowfirebird on Fri, 8 Dec 2006 05:42:46 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.
From: shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:42:42 +0000
In-reply-to: <ubqmebo0i.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <410-22006125831650220@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7b4a1ba30612080224h3760e063k9923a91b8db935b9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ubqmebo0i.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Personally I don't really get all these terms like "imperative".  And
I'm not sure that I care.

I think "should" in a rule is fine.   Frankly, these rules aren't to
be interpreted by a computer and I'd hope that they wouldn't be
interpreted by a raging pedant, or the game would get pretty boring.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.
  - From: Iain Scott

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Judgement on RFJ 5.
  - From: Iain Scott
- Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.
  - From: Peter Cooper Jr.

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: you know you want 'em
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] Judgement on RFJ 5.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread