On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another point in R2156's favor is R2162: "If an instance of a switch > would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its > default value." As soon as R2126 made an instantaneous change of > comex's VP to a value not permitted by R2156, R2162 would then have > immediately made a second instantaneous change setting comex's caste > to Epsilon.
Er, except that R2156 never claimed to change comex's caste, so the above isn't applicable. -root
