On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
'perl-or' was Do X or die so that
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
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 probably
On 24 June 2011 20:59, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu 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.)
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 failure,
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
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu 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
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu 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
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 23 June 2011 05:18, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you trying to get at the select two votes thing? I think it pretty
clearly evaluates down to one selection at the end.
No; comex is arguing that the action is interpreted as
On 22 June 2011 01:33, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguments: func(a || b) is not generally equivalent to func(a) || func(b).
Arguments: Is AGAINST if Murphy sucks, else PRESENT one vote, or a
conditional branch of two votes?
On 06/22/2011 07:47 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 22 June 2011 01:33, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguments: func(a || b) is not generally equivalent to func(a) || func(b).
Arguments: Is AGAINST if Murphy sucks, else PRESENT one vote, or a
conditional branch of two votes?
Are you trying to
On 23 June 2011 05:18, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you trying to get at the select two votes thing? I think it pretty
clearly evaluates down to one selection at the end.
No; comex is arguing that the action is interpreted as (vote(MURPH or
AGAINST)); I am arguing for
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Arguments: We have precedent that the truth value of an action
statement is true if it succeeds and false if it does not; as many
Perl I/O functions also follow such a convention, we should treat the
boolean
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Hows:
If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that
has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding.
Looks fine-- although, by
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Hows:
If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that
has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules
to the contrary
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Looks fine-- although, by the way, I'm not sure this clause is
necessary in the first place.
Without it, is there anything stopping a Power 1 Rule from being made that
allows a proposal to take effect using the R106
While you're at it, two suggestions:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
A proposal with a decision on which the option selected by Agora
is not ADOPTED does not take effect, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding.
This is worded this way due to
On 06/17/2011 01:50 PM, omd wrote:
When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it
specifies one or more changes to the gamestate.
I've always thought this text was really ugly.
I have a feeling that this used to say something like a proposal SHOULD
specify one or more
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
While you're at it, two suggestions:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
A proposal with a decision on which the option selected by Agora
is not ADOPTED does not take effect, rules to the contrary
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote:
On 06/17/2011 01:50 PM, omd wrote:
When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it
specifies one or more changes to the gamestate.
I've always thought this text was really ugly.
I have a feeling that this used to say something like
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Yeah, I stared at this for a while when cutting and pasting just now and
wondered why it was this way but just left it. How's this:
If a decision to adopt a proposal does not result in an outcome of
ADOPTED,
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Yeah, I stared at this for a while when cutting and pasting just now and
wondered why it was this way but just left it. How's this:
If a decision to adopt a proposal does not
22 matches
Mail list logo
