Peter Kirk wrote: > >Well, the requirement for an invariable set seems to be part > >of the "rules of the game" with this UTR, so I'll stick to > > it. > > > Well, I was taking a rather different approach: noting that > UTR31 is so far only a "proposed draft", I was suggesting > a change to the rules of the game.
Sorry, but this sounds like nonsense to me... It is as if we were discussing the details of a card game, and you popped up to say: "OK, but I suggest that only the door-keeper must be allowed to touch the ball with his hands". _ Marco
