On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
>> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its lef
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its left argument and
returns that, unless it is false, in which cas
> Further, I don't believe "or" is ruleset-defined, so it should have the
> common language meaning, which is exclusive, but I think there is history to
> suggest that ENDORSE or AGAINST means what Tanner intended. (I could be
> completely wrong about this)
Post-research remarks: This is wrong/i
> Turiski,
>
> Your email seems to be the one with funky wrapping; Gondilier's second
> message looks fine to me.
I'm not entirely sure how my wrapping works. I fiddled with some settings; is
it better now?
> (Specifying a Boolean logical OR in the original message would have
> guaranteed failu
On 24 June 2011 20:59, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
> 'perl-or' was "Do X or die" so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
The semantics of (a or b) and (a || b) are identical in Perl. (I think.)
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 pro
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
> And it probably doesn't require a CFJ, but… if you look at historical
> attempts to register, they tend to be intentionally obfuscated and then CFJed.
For certain painful values of recent history.
> 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 unfor
Gondolier, please send your mail in plaintext. If you do not know how, tell us
what client you're using and I'm sure someone can help you.
And it probably doesn't require a CFJ, but… if you look at historical attempts
to register, they tend to be intentionally obfuscated and then CFJed. So, we'r
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Arkady English
wrote:
> Dear Agorans:
> I'd like to say "Hi!" and announce my intent to lurk/spy on the game for a
> bit, until I get a feel for what it's like here, at which point I will
> consider joining as a player.
> While I do: can anyone help with this: I'm
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
> Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing
>
> A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
> prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
> indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably una
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
> >> A first-class person CAN register by sending a public message.
> > No more CFJs by non-players?
>
> From that wording, it would still be possible. They CAN register, but they do
> not necessarily do so.
Obviously the wording is unclear if at l
12 matches
Mail list logo
