ANSTHRLD - Yet another conflict check

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

"Jennifer Smith" <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> On 28 Jan 01, at 19:08, Timothy A. McDaniel wrote:
> >     Sable, a widget Or.
> > has two CDs from
> >     Sable, a widget and on a chief Or three wadgets sable.
> 
> I assume the reverse is also true?  That is, the latter has two CDs
> from the former also?  If so, that answers most of the questions I
> had in my other post with the "big white bear" device.

Yes.  RfS X.4.b reads "Addition of Charges on the Field - Adding or
removing any group of charges placed directly on the field, including
strewn charges, is one clear difference.".  So the *header* of the
rule just says "addition", and often for brevity I'll just write "1 CD
for adding the narfing iron", but the full text says that it works
forward and reverse.

There *are* a few odd assymetric cases where A being submitted is
clear of already-registered B, but B being submitted would conflict
with already-registered A.  Such a case does not arise with addition
or removal of charges, for the reasons I gave above.


(Intermediate RfS Theory, for the mid-range rules wonks:

When do such cases arise?  RfS X.4.j.ii "In simple cases substantially
changing the type of all of a group of identical charges placed
entirely on other charges is one clear difference.  ONLY THE NEW
SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED TO BE A SIMPLE CASE in order to benefit from
the following clauses." (emphasis mine).  Suppose A is X.4.j.ii-simple
and B is not.  The assymetry results.

Currently, X.2, the other "simple" case, granting complete difference
for substantial change of the primary group, requires that both the
current armory and the registered one under comparison both be
simple.  There is a proposal, likely to be adopted, to make it
assymetric just like X.4.j.ii -- to only require the new armory to be
simple.

The reason for the assymetry is, I think, because it's tedious to
determine whether armory is "simple" under the meaning of either rule.
(Note that "simple" in X.2 means something almost entirely different
from "simple" in X.4.j.ii.)  To do a real conflict check under current
X.2, you'd have to parse each design in the Ordinary to check from
simplicity, under any of the 3 sub-cases of X.2 (see what I mean about
"tedious"?), before trying to apply X.2.)

Daniel de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel is tmcd at jump.net; if that fail,
    tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.