Kerim Aydin wrote: > I would disagree >with Zefram's choice, and follow the old regulation governing >amendments,
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was "the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended". Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment number that it started with. > Not the least of which, it screws up the >searchable rules database I'm about 95% finished with. I reckon it's the renumbering that does that. I suggest that any historical database of the rules be keyed on the rules' *original* number, rather than current number. There is no duplication or change there. Proto-proto: renumber 105 back to its original 2131, so that all current rules have their original number; add a precedence clause to 2131 to restore the high precedence that the number 105 gave it; enact a Power=4 rule that defines the concept of a rule, and in particular says that rule numbers cannot change. -zefram
