Re: [s-d] [s-b] Definitely not a Bribe Proposal

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JamesB wrote:

>> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:58:14 -0800
>> From: emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Definitely not a Bribe Proposal
>>>> I stand by my judgement, both because "Official Document" is indeed
>>>> undefined, and because Rule 8 does not clearly nullify comment text
>>>> within proposals (at least "shall not have the force of Rule" is
>>>> moot, as proposals don't have the force of Rule anyway). In fact,
>>>> in the specific case of proposals to create or amend a rule such
>>>> that it includes comment text, Rule 8 *should not* nullify that
>>>> text within the context of the proposal's effects if adopted.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and Rule 8 is also potentially subject to the old "unmatched
>>>> delimiter -> large chunk of the ruleset commented out" bug, so
>>>> whoever proposes a fix to the above issues should clear that up
>>>> as well while they're at it.
> 
> I don't think so as the word "next" is used so there must be double
> close square brackets following double open square brackets and only
> the first double close square brackets that are arrived at will be
> taken as the closing delimiter, with the text between the two
> character sequences "[[" and "]]" being taken as the comment.
> 
> So "]] (comment) [[" wouldn't work, as that is "[[" and the previous
> "]]", and "[[ ]] (comment) [[ ]]" wouldn't work, as the the first "]]"
> arrived at closes the outside comment ("next" does not mean "second
> along"). 		 	   		

I believe the case that triggered a crisis last time was something like

  Rule 501:  blah blah [[ blah blah

  Rule 502:  blah blah blah blah

  Rule 503:  blah blah [[ blah blah ]] blah blah

which (if the ruleset is interpreted as one long document) means that
all of Rule 502 is arguably commented out.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss