On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 23 March 2012 17:58, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see the problem. It seems to me to work correctly. > > Oh, silly me; I thought the procedure also defined a golem's owner, > due to the circularity remark, but in fact it doesn't. (Right?) So > this looks fine to me.
Yah, ownership is defined under assets.
