On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > The 'and' in bullet point 3 really doesn't make since. If it is to be > treated as anding the bullets together than all dependant actions > failed since it was added (since those actions would have to depend on > support, objection, and agoran consent). Observe: > > IF ((supported) AND (not objected) AND (consent)) THEN (satisfied) > > vs. > > IF ((supported) OR (not objected) OR (consent)) THEN (satisfied) > > The second is the way the rule has been interpreted until now. The > first would prevent all dependant actions.
It does make sense. It previously was IF ((requires support AND supported) OR (requires objections AND not objected) OR (requires consent AND consent)) however, this doesn't work in the case of multi-method dependent actions. It was changed to: IF ((IF requires support THEN supported) AND (IF requires objections THEN not objected) AND (IF requires consent THEN consent)) THEN (satisfied) (Of course, a -> b is always true if ~a.) Your proposal changed it to: IF ((IF requires support THEN supported) AND (IF requires objections THEN not objected) AND (IF requires consent THEN consent) AND (requires notice)) THEN (satisfied) which is broken except in the case of actions taken with notice. -- -c.
