Indeed. I therefore propose that ''da'o'' be used to specify
assymetry in ''goi'' and ''cei'' assignments. Whichever element is
da'o-ed is considered to be cleared out and overwritten by the new
value. This may well mean redefining ''da'o'', which I think
currently means "undefine everything." For that meaning, I propose
''da'oda'o''. DAhO has the same grammar as UI, near enough, so it
can be considered to attach to things. ''da'o'' outside of goi/cei
will retain the meaning of undefining whatever it's attached to.
This, I think, is a pretty small change, not really munging baseline
badly, and certainly it accords with grammar. And I think it neatly
solves several problems at once. ''--mi'e mark''
I second. DAhO is another example of a selma'o that should not
exist. Apparently the only difference with UI is that ''da'onai'' is
not allowed, but it has a very useful meaning: when you want to
emphasize that you are __not__ undefining something. So, whenever it
is pertinent, ''da'o'' should be moved to UI. --mi'e [xorxes]
(end of quoting)
What think you, And et al?