o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*" I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Unfortunately for the cleverness of the rule, I find that Rule 2166 is > > explicit in defining “pay” as transferring “to another entity”. So, “to > > pay” without a recipient isn’t a mechanism explicitly defined in the > > rules. This may have worked in the past, but R2125 has a relatively new > > strict requirement for mechanism specification: > > > > > A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the > > > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > > > Rules for performing the given action. > > > > And so to say you can do something by “paying” for it without adding a > > recipient does not explicitly specify a mechanism to this new standard. > > So as the Caller states, it is TRUE that it is impossible to issue > > writs. TRUE. > > Fun question: > > Did the change in strictness in R2125 (adopted Oct 22) break everything > that uses "spend" because "spend" is still not defined? > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
