On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:31 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> In general, drafting with precedence deferral is bad form, because it
> has the potential to bring about complex webs of precedent that must
> be unraveled in order to interpret the rules. If the rules are
> instead drafted to eliminate conflicts, then they're easier to read.
> In fact, I would support removing the existing unused deferral clause
> from R1030 altogether.
Didn't there used to be a rule that went around changing the precedences
of other rules at random? "This rule defers to all other rules that do
not contain this sentence."
--
ais523
