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

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.

Not quite. What came up last time was a phrasing that didn't try to
force the delimiters to match, such that any text between an instance
of [[ and an instance of ]] was comment text - which comments out
everything between the first comment anywhere in the ruleset and the
last.

So, not quite the same as what you suggest, which requires errors in
the rules - but small ones easy to miss in a proposal would do it
under B's current rules. Unless we accidentally comment out the rules
that make ministerial reports self-ratify, though, they wouldn't be
quite so disastrous as in eras of B more platonic than this one.

The other bug you can introduce with bad (or malicious) proposal
writing is what happens if you try to nest comments - {{blah blah [[
commenty stuff [[ yadda yadda ]] more stuff ]] blah blah}} includes
"more stuff" as rule text.

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