Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic

["Charles Schaefer" <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/10/7, Jamie Dallaire bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx:
>
>
> I'm starting to be more and more inclined to just kill rule 83 and let
> whatever happens in C nomic happen in C nomic. I don't think any of these
> attempts to transfer objects or resrouces from one nomic to another are
> actually valid, but only once rule 83 dies will c nomic events definitely
> not touch b nomic. And then maybe we can start a D Nomic properly without
> letting it invade B...


Question to everyone voting to keep C Nomic (i.e. FOR p493/494 and AGAINST
p496): Do you want to fork off of B Nomic's current ruleset, or do you just
like having a C Nomic? I am working on a C Nomic contract in my userspace on
the wiki, which could serve as a simpler initial ruleset. If you DO want to
fork off of B, how are you going to go about doing that? I haven't been
keeping a  record of all the ways C is diverging from B, but I suspect it
would just be simpler for you to take a snapshot of the rules and PDs at a
certain point in time and work from there. If C Nomic does end up staying
around, I'll probably submit the contract nomic under a different name. I
don't much care for D Nomic, though. Right now, I think I'd like to name it
Y Nomic. I ask myself that all the time.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss