Michael Slone wrote:
I don't understand your clause ``which explicitly puts all the rule
changes into a single transaction''. Are you talking about the text
No. I'm talking about
The provisions of this (proto)proposal are nonseverable.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
What exactly about that provision makes you think I would enjoy Agora
being transformed into a glorified database?
Er, what aspect of B Nomic's transaction rule makes you think it makes
the game a glorified database?
-zefram
On 5/24/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What exactly about that provision makes you think I would enjoy Agora
being transformed into a glorified database?
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
-root
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
On 5/24/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
I beg to
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules
Let me try my hand at this...
UPDATE Agora SET Winner='BobTHJ'
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BEGIN
Murphy wrote:
update rules
set text = replace(text,'old','new')
where number = 106
FWIW, you're forgetting version numbers means every amendment is kept,
so (forgiving the php intrusion):
$query = INSERT into $tablename values ('$rnum','$rver','$rflags',
'$rtitle', '$rhistory',
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled More on paragraphs:
As long as you're working on 1023 (d), could you clarify (d) (3)?
(3) Units are considered in an ordered tree hierarchy. The
root is empty, any unbulleted units
On 5/24/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled More on paragraphs:
As long as you're working on 1023 (d), could you clarify (d) (3)?
(3) Units are considered in an ordered tree hierarchy.
I suppose so. Am I permitted to modify proposals after I submit them?
BobTHJ
On 5/24/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we split this up into several rules?
On 5/24/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal:
Nomic Protectorates
AI 2
Create a
On 5/24/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway... I meant to say that I don't know what rule 106 you're talking
about.
Er, it's the one titled Adopting Proposals.
-root
You can withdraw and resubmit.
On 5/24/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose so. Am I permitted to modify proposals after I submit them?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 5/24/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose so. Am I permitted to modify proposals after I submit them?
BobTHJ
No, but you can retract it and submit a new one.
-root
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure that I see the problem. The clause is definitional, not
procedural. Would it help if considered were replaced with
conceptually organized?
It would help eliminate some ambiguity. I suggest something like the
following.
(3)
On 5/24/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(3) The units of a document form an ordered tree with the order
determined as follows. Each unit has a level, which is the
number of spaces preceding the first non-space character on
the first line of the
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reluctant to make indentation matter, since that could interfere
with the rulekeepor's ability to make formatting changes. I'll give
this some thought, though.
I did not mean to suggest that you should make indentation matter.
Feel free to
19 matches
Mail list logo
