On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:23 PM D Margaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Your argument is something like saying that since we only > > defined what foo(int x) does, you are free to interpret the entity > > "foo" to mean the separate, hitherto by rules undefined function > > foo(char c). > > I think this is on the right track for why it doesn’t work. > > Putting it slightly differently, maybe CuddleBeam is eliding the > difference between the name given to certain entities (“rulekeepor”) and an > instance of that entity (a rulekeepor). Someone could register with the > name “the Speaker,” but that registration would not mean that suddenly the > rules referring to the office of the Speaker now conferred powers on the > player named “the Speaker.” At least, that seems somewhat analogous to what > CuddleBeam is attempting. There’s a fairly strong traditional definition of recordkeepor as “someone who records something”, regardless of whether it’s assets or switches or something else. I’ll have other arguments later, but one question is whether the idea of requiring someone to do something is transative. If A requires compliance with B, and B requires C, does A require C? Logically yes, but I’m not sure if English works that way. -Aris
