Oh, I didn't even think of forbiddenness as being a property.
Attempt #3:
When a binding entity explicitly defines an action, describes the
possibility of performing an action, or describes the methods by
which an action can be performed, it creates an action that is
distinct from al
There’s a slight problem with that wording. It doesn’t have to purport to
define or describe it, it just has to do so. Purporting to define or
describe something would be saying “I describe X”. Also, you’ve got to make
sure you phrase it in a way that allows entities to refer to actions
defined by
I think you're right about the first sentence. I believe it made more
sentence in v0, where there was some context about defining actions. The
intent was to basically say that, when a binding entity creates an
action (either by explicit definition, or by describing its properties),
it "owns" th
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only
> require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT
> modify anything else about the action in any way.
I don't understand this part. As far as I can tell, w
Okay, I've done to v2 what I already did to v0: kill the scope creep. It
was much less extreme this time, but I realized that the scope creeped
into contract safety. This version is basically just fixing
interpretation and expanding some useful clauses to apply to more than
just the Rules.
H
I think the main issue with contracts is that there are fairly complex
desires for what we want them to do. The changes to R1742 ensure that
they can prohibit/require anything that the Rules define, which I think
is desirable. If that's all we wanted contracts to be able to do, then
that would
In large part, it’s the whole thing together. It feels like a complex set
of changes across multiple rules. The fact that such a change is necessary
suggests that the entire approach is inelegant. In general, the best
approaches to solving problems require relatively few rule changes, and it
feels
Is it any parts specifically, or is it just the entire thing when looked
at together?
If it's any part specifically, I imagine it's either the Rule 1742 or
the Rule 2125 changes.
The Rule 2125 changes were intended to mirror the old Rule 2125 as
closely as possible. The big changes (outside
Thanks! Responses inline again.
Jason Cobb
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
that the performance of them must include at least clearly and
unambiguously announcing the performance of t
It’s getting to the point where this is feeling inelegant again, which is
usually a very bad sign.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next
> distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer.
>
> omd: any of y
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
> that the performance of them must include at least clearly and
> unambiguously announcing the performance of the action:
What does it mean to "define" an
Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next
distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer.
omd: any of your previous comments that I did not specify a resolution
for are resolved as WONTFIX (I think it's just inextricable conditionals
and not regulating matters of e
I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent
specified by the Rules".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
> >> other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules,
> >> contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that
> >> m
Thanks! Responses inline.
Jason Cobb
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
T
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
> sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
> conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
This seems like it could allow contracts
16 matches
Mail list logo
