Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

Elliott Hird on Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:09:37 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
From: Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:09:44 +0000
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:mime-version:in-reply-to :references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from :subject:date:to:x-mailer; bh=ffyLjDTFtByHL4BDwTd/BHVasSF4ybWtfzmwlLIPJns=; b=xcz4lYWhf1v1z3tZQNg2o3XVAeBS8GqEY4MxlJ6WcZNeQmagiYZv+HwZWdh2TRYT70 uFOdTrQIKOagsmZAGBYjDaOMvgFX5UvE7Jojvu0xXNmlkhkKN5wMH2Lv5u00Qzkrt89z uxncyB1JiDHjmvQQNhKzO3urvTV44agW/khsc=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=YSrw6AkCWgCPZ3dGw12icIWnTH7/9Z2qbPBrZMTpDuHsa5JeyZMpfPX7aHpyUiVujP WE4QAFW1YxWTKSrM30OhQyDRl0wELuOhSrUWrvc7+f2kTKm4hE5c8iwGEGCIzSI/TzpO U0ML2Zs2SkS2XGyxw1YrdddaTZebSPuJ+PbCQ=
In-reply-to: <498741B1.5060908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <956602.48398.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc1c5cf21c38273ea7a0c314eeca8176@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49873811.1080104@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20902021015p15fdb101t88e5fd01928af5fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49873914.9090700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20902021050n2e65d596t6d938528bd667f6e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <498741B1.5060908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


On 2 Feb 2009, at 18:55, Jay Campbell wrote:

Maybe the creation of the current unique-names rule led toambiguous gamestate and failed.


No, because it only applies post-creation.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: bnomic
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Ed Murphy
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Craig Daniel
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Jay Campbell
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Craig Daniel
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
  - From: Jay Campbell

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread