On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote: > > The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us > > from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether > > the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense > > interpretation and probably the intent). > > > > -G. > > That's a rather unfortunate feature of endorsement. > > Arguments: Since the original document specified in particular a "Perl-style > 'or'", rather than simply a more general type of "or", the message presented > a reasonably unambiguous intent to follow a strict logical interpretation. In > that case, the question at play is whether this intent is stronger than the > intent to vote "what Murphy votes, otherwise AGAINST".
Turiski, Your email seems to be the one with funky wrapping; Gondilier's second message looks fine to me. Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'. (Specifying a Boolean logical OR in the original message would have guaranteed failure, which I'm guessing wasn't the intent). -G.
