Magic Words
> > I am not completely averse to the exceptionless rules (they are
> > quite simple, after all), but I'd really prefer to stick with
> > real things in the text stream (i.e. words) if we can.
>
> But honorary words are just as real as words! {lo'u} can take more
> than one word in its scope, why is it such a big deal that other
> magic words take more than one word in some cases as well?
Two reasons:
1. It's a substantial change to the language.
2. I have no idea what most of these constructs would actually
- mean*.
-Robin