>> Would you dare to interpret my update suggestion (reordering of two >> identifiers) >> as a required SmPL script correction? > > I didn't suggest to reorder anything.
This is obvious according to your acknowledgement for the sixth version of this evolving SmPL script. > Both are needed. If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion for a SmPL ellipsis: Can we agree on a correct order? > And, no I don't consider it to be a required suggestion. Have we got a different view about an implementation detail at this place? > In practice, reassigning such a variable is very unlikely. This can be. Regards, Markus
