On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, omd wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Eritivus <eriti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I must not understand this comment. Surely the problem wasn't that > > there was no specified order for the individual replacements? It > > would seem very odd to require such an order. > > Agora is nothing if not odd. > > Rule 105 states: > > Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. > > Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that > change to be void and without effect. > > For sequential changes to be unambiguous, an order must be defined. > In general, this isn't *just* a pointless conceptual game: it's > possible for mixed pre- and post-replacement states to cause strange > effects, depending on the rules involved, depending on the order. One > might wonder why applying the replacements simultaneously is so bad, > and whether it might indeed avoid any possibility of such effects > without a discernible downside... but forbidding them is how the rules > stand.
Note that, *within* a rule change, it's allowed and (I think?) simultaneous. E.g. "replace all instances of foo in Rule XXX with bar" is a single rule change, because it's a single amendment under R105(d). Don't think there's anything wrong with either method, they just have different failure modes. There's precedents about the sequential failure modes, it might (or might not) be fun to play with a whole new set of failure modes..
