• when writing "Player u MoneyRequest", i did intend for u to only match single words
  • i think it is likely that i will want to write other such patterns in the future, matching only on single words, more often than i will want to match on multiple words
  • i don't want to be writing "where u is a single word" all the time.
  • this discussion is otherwise not particularly interesting to me; the pattern-matching notation is supposed to be incidental to the mechanics of objects and holding

i consider it a flaw that there is no mechanism for judging disputes in the rules; i also consider it a flaw that there is no way to modify the rules except by me in cases of flaws. i add this text to the end of the rules:

If an Object with the Name "Legislature" exists, it may make arbitrary changes to the text of these rules, as an Action. If an Object with the Name "Judiciary" exists, it may make binding judgements on disputes between players, as an Action.

I have the State create an Object named "Legislature" and an object named "Judiciary". Through transitive sole-holdingness i have Judiciary make the following judgement:

When a pattern is being matched against the name of an Object, unless otherwise specified, metasyntactic variables in that pattern match against single words only.