On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I have at least one private contract with a trigger that does exactly > > that. I think in this case, needing such a trigger is a good thing, so > > that everyone knows the details of the actions that are being taken; why > > require simultaneous publication in more than one rule, when we have a > > rule that deals with publicising of contracts already? > > Er, my point is, doesn't the proposal outlaw that kind of thing, and say > that the full contract that contains the trigger has to be public? -G.
Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. -- ais523
