On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: > > > By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether > > "MAY with N Support" in general invokes dependent actions thus turning > > a MAY into a CAN? > > Rule 1728 includes this: > > A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise > permitted by the rules. > > but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, > legal, or both.
CAN is always physical; but "as otherwise permitted by the rules" makes the whole thing even more muddy. As for Goethe's original question, I'm not answering right now because I'm not sure, I'll have to look into the issue more closely. I strongly suspect there's at least one bug in the rule, but am not entirely sure of its effects right now. -- ais523
