Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1

> > Even though this might seem unnecessary in
> > the unitary world, this same rule set will have to live in a Phase 2
> > world with other semantics, so it must be prepared to declare its
> > characteristics in that larger context.
> 
> Well, this assumes, for starters, that there will be other, divergent,
> semantics in Phase 2.  I do not conceed this point.  However, even if this
> were the case, how do divergent semantics in Phase 2 require divergent
> semantics in Phase 1?

I didn't say that Phase 1 will necessarily have multiple semantics.
I said that Phase 1 must already have a plan for Phase 2.

But if we include constraints in Phase 1 then we might need to deal with
multiple semantics already in Phase 1. (As we discussed, the semantics of
constraints is not first-order.)


	--michael