Re: Non-anon extensibility and policy intersection

David Hull wrote:
> OK, here's my second attempt at a reply.  The first one went off in
> the weeds when I realized I didn't completely grok the way nested
> policy assertions work (as opposed to policy expressions that nest),
> and that I'd mistakenly taken "intersection" in "intersections between
> all pairs of compatible alternatives" to mean "intersection", since
> alternatives are, after all, defined as sets.  BZZZT!  "Intersection"
> here means "union", as in "If two alternatives are compatible, their
> intersection /[sic]/ is an alternative containing all of the
> assertions in both alternatives."
Actually, I am informed that it doesn't mean union, but neither does it
necessarily mean "intersection".

As a result, any examples I gave are almost certainly wrong.

I stand by my previous (virtual) rant on mathematical terms and notation.